주거 서울 구■■로 길■■동 호 동,

currently prison confinement

[Reference domicile-si]

A. Error of mistake

Although it was true that the defendant sent a letter as stated in the facts charged, it cannot be deemed that there was a purpose of retaliation because it was an appeal for one’s detention. However, the court below erred by excessive error.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

When considering various circumstances against the defendant, the sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

Although the defendant asserted the same purport in the court below, the court below rejected this part of the charges on the defendant, on the other hand, on the ground that the defendant's above assertion was "the judgment on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion", by integrating the evidence duly adopted and examined.

Examining the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the court below's determination that the defendant sent letter to the victim for the purpose of retaliation is just and pride, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment. Therefore, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

It is true that there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant, who was sentenced to heavy punishment for 13 years, did not restrain his own appraisal and caused the crime of this case, and that the contents of the crime of this case are merely mere sending a letter.

However, it cannot be deemed that the crime of this case was committed by sending a letter containing the contents of retaliation against the victim while giving testimony to the victim of the sexual crime committed by him in relation thereto, and that the crime of this case was committed against the victim, and that the nature and circumstances of the crime were less severe, and that the victim suffered from serious mental suffering from the defendant's act as above. In full view of all other circumstances, including the defendant's character and behavior, environment, the means and method of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the original judge against the defendant is deemed appropriate and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too excessive. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Kim Jong-hee

10 Mad 10