특수협박등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
On December 5, 2017, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the facts of assault among the facts charged in the instant case were erroneous on the grounds of appeal at the first trial date of the first trial of the first instance on December 5, 2017, but this does not include the reasons for appeal submitted within the time limit for submitting the reasons for appeal. Therefore, the said assertion was made on the grounds of appeal.
Nor can it be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234 delivered on September 22, 1998). Even if the defendant appealed on the ground of the above assertion, the defendant appealed.
In light of the above, since the judgment dismissing a public prosecution cannot be seen as a judgment disadvantageous to the defendant, the defendant did not have the right to appeal against it (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Do941, Jun. 9, 1987; 97Do1211, Aug. 22, 1997). Since the court below rendered a ruling dismissing a public prosecution against the crime of assault among the facts charged in this case, the defendant's appeal against this part is unlawful and acceptable.
Of the facts charged in this case, the Defendant did not interfere with the operation of the restaurant by the injured party, such as this part of the facts charged, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the
The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical weakness, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to sulfur disorder, uneasiness, main food, and alcohol dependence, at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, but did not reduce punishment due to mental and physical weakness.
Sentencing of the lower court (exemption from punishment for crimes No. 1 in the holding of the lower court, and imprisonment for crimes No. 2 through 5 in the holding of the lower court, 1 year and 6 months in the holding of the lower court) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the victim, consistently at the police and the lower court’s court.