상해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as the penalty (one million won of a fine) imposed by the court below is excessively unreasonable.
2. We examine the judgment on the grounds of appeal. Each of the crimes of this case committed by the Defendant is deemed to be disadvantageous to the Defendant, in light of the content and method of the crime, and the fact that the nature of the crime is not weak in light of the substance and method of the crime, and that the degree of the type of the Defendant’s exercise of the right
However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the facts of the instant crime in the lower court’s trial, which led to the Defendant’s conviction in depth; (b) paid KRW 500,000 to the victim in the first instance trial; (c) the Defendant agreed smoothly with the victim by paying KRW 500,000 to the victim; (d) the Defendant’s age in the 83 years of age has not sufficiently been subject to special criminal punishment; (b) the Defendant has no record of special criminal punishment except for the punishment twice prior to 30 years of age; (c) balance with the general sentencing of the case in the same or similar case; and (d) other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, character and character, intelligence and environment; and (e) the motive, motive, means and consequence, and consequence of the instant crime; (c) the circumstances after the crime; (d) criminal records; (e) family relations; and (e)
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts constituting an offense and the summary of the evidence acknowledged by this court is as follows: (a) except for the alteration of “the Defendant’s partial statement” as “1. The Defendant’s oral statement” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below to “the Defendant’s oral statement”, it is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below; (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369