특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복협박등)등
Each judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and nine months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (the part of the judgment of the court below) 1, misunderstanding the legal principles, and even if the Defendant did not have the purpose of retaliation against the victim at the time of committing the crime No. 3 of the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, the second instance court convicted him of this part of the charges. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the purpose of retaliation or retaliation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The defendant with a mental disability was a state of mental disability such as breathn
3) The sentence of imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor (the part of the lower court’s judgment) sentenced by the first instance court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Before determining each of the allegations by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, this paper examined ex officio.
As to the judgment of the court below of the second instance, the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and each of the offenses recognized in the above judgment is concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, each of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.
However, even though there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and claim of mental or physical disability still is subject to the judgment of this court,
B. As to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and facts and circumstances recognized by the rules of evidence, the Defendant stated, at the time of committing this part of the crime, that “the Defendant was living in prison for 69 days during which he reported Chewing and four years to the victim.”