도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Although there was no fact that Defendant 1 told J and K of misunderstanding of facts that he would die, the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of each special intimidation on August 26, 2019 among the facts charged in the instant case, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s punishment of unfair sentencing (one year and eight months of imprisonment and fine of three hundred thousand won, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecution of mistake of facts, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the special intimidation on August 21, 2019 among the facts charged in the instant case, despite the fact that the Defendant excessively cited the fact that he threatened the victim B, and the court below acquitted the Defendant of the special intimidation on August 21, 2019. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The court below’
2. Determination
A. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts against the defendant is changed to the purport that he did not make a statement to the victim J and K that he would die. However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of intimidation against the above victims as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding the facts, such as the defendant's assertion.
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, while sufficiently explaining the grounds for determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts.
Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor is not sufficient to readily conclude that the defendant's act was an intentional threat as to notifying the victim of harm. Thus, this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, this part of the facts charged is to the same purport.