문화재보호법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Fact-finding mistake (the violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act following the attempted fire prevention of designated cultural heritage) (the Defendant’s failure to commit a fire on the second floor) attached an abnormal strawer, i.e., e., e., an interest or the second floor. However, this was merely intended to avoid drilling, and there was no intention to attach a strawer on the 2nd floor.
B) At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally weak due to mental illness, etc.
C) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a three-year imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unfasible and unfair.
2. Determination on the Defendant’s mistake of facts and the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical weakness
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.
In regard to this, the lower court, under the title of the “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”, stated the relevant legal doctrine and, in light of the various facts and circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, at the time, the Defendant had had the intention to prevent the fingerprint, which is a cultural re-designated culture, or at least dolusent intent
Considering that it is reasonable to see the above argument, it rejected the above argument.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is sufficiently acceptable, and there is no error by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.
B. In light of the following circumstances and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, specific methods of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime, which can be revealed based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant.