특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복범죄등)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Error of mistake (i.e., assault and threat of each of 2012 Gohap1267 as stated in the judgment of the court below) is merely an contingent act by the defendant under the influence of alcohol, and the victim does not have the purpose of retaliation for reporting in relation
D. The defendant, like 2012 Gohap1432 as stated in the judgment below, has inflicted an injury upon the victim's face by drinking, but the number of times when it was taken is not five times but two times as stated in its reasoning.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the purpose of retaliation against the defendant in relation to the above (i) and recognized the number of times when the defendant was the victim as five times in relation to the above (b) and found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As stated in the lower judgment, the Defendant issued a summary order on the grounds of the crime of injury, etc. on two occasions on January 10, 2012 and January 11, 2012 by a victim’s report as indicated in the lower judgment. In light of the following: (i) the developments leading up to each of the instant assault and threat, (ii) the developments leading up to each of the instant assault and threat, (iii) the temporal distance between the said two summary orders and each of the instant assault and threat, and (iv) the motive of the assault and threat to the victim at the time of the instant assault and threat, and (v) the motive of the assault and threat to the victim at the time of each of the instant assault and threat, the Defendant is recognized to have committed each of the instant assault and threat with a view to retaliation against the victim on the grounds that the
B. On June 23, 2012, 2012, 201432, the victim stated in the investigative agency that “the defendant was able to have his face from the defendant 5 to 6 times on June 23, 2012.” This made it clear that “the defendant was 5 to 6 times on his face from the defendant.” This made it an assault against the victim.