폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등협박)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles (1) misunderstanding (1) around 20:00 on May 27, 2015, the fact that the Defendant took an attitude that the Defendant had taken the view that he had taken the convenience store by citing the bricks is not admissible as evidence because the witness D’s statement at the court of first instance was merely the purport that he had taken it from a third party, and the remainder of the evidence alone cannot be found to have been used as a threat of force as the Defendant left the convenience store.
(2) The panel that destroyed the Defendant’s damage to special property does not belong to the victim.
(3) Special intimidation and around 23:25 on May 27, 2015: (a) the Defendant’s interference with the business (A) on the part of customers with convenience stores shall be discarded from death at a time.
Inasmuch as the testimony of the witness D at the first instance trial that he said that he said the testimony was made by the third party, it is not admissible as a specialized evidence, and the remaining evidence alone is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant made the said remarks to the convenience store customers, and since the convenience store customers did not drink the Defendant’s talk, special intimidation is not established.
(B) Since the customers in dispute with the defendant had already completed accounting at the convenience store in the operation of the victim, the defendant did not interfere with the victim's duties.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "if a statement made by a person other than the defendant is the content of another person other than the defendant at a preparatory hearing or at a public trial, the original statement may not be made due to death, illness, overseas residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and it may be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances," among the witness D's legal statement in the first instance trial, it is the same as the statement in Articles 1 and 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment of the court below.