공갈등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding (the judgment of the court of first instance) did not err by threatening the victim.
B. The lower court’s respective sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance court’s sentence: imprisonment of February and the second instance court’s sentence: imprisonment of March) is excessively unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination of ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against both the judgment of the court of the first and second instance, and the court of the court of the first and second instance decided to hold two appeals jointly. Each of the crimes of the court of the first and second instance is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed within the scope of a limited term of punishment, and therefore, each of the judgment below against the defendant cannot be maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts against the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of this court.
3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the victim loaned money to the defendant by borrowing money from the female her child-friendly Gu upon the defendant's repeated request to impose organized violence, even though she did not want to lend money to the defendant, and the victim consistently stated that the defendant who received the demand for repayment would not have the victim's desire to do so and would not have the victim again, and that he would have been able to receive her remedy from the defendant who is a organized violence, and that he/she has consistently stated that he/she could not demand repayment, the above act of the defendant would be sufficient to have the other party's awareness that she would have suffered any harm and injury, and thus, it is found guilty of the facts charged in this case.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
4. Conclusion.