감금등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) argues that the defendant did not have any intention of injury at the time on the part of the violation of the Welfare of Older Persons Act as stated in the judgment of the court below, but as examined below, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with occupational injury or injury resulting in the violation of the Welfare of Older Persons Act and permitted the trial to do so. As such, the argument on the part of the violation of the Welfare of Older Persons
The defendant was merely a studio in a room for the purpose of genuineizing the victim at the time, and the defendant's act does not go against the social rules, and thus the illegality should be avoided. However, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio, and the "Welfare of the Aged Act violation" among the names of the crimes against the defendant against the defendant by the prosecutor for the first time in the trial, the applicable provisions of Article 5-2 and Article 39-9 subparagraph 1 of the Welfare of the Aged Act are "Article 268 of the Criminal Act", and Article 2 (2) of the facts charged is "the Welfare of the Aged Act" as "the crime of injury by occupational negligence" from "the crime of violating the Welfare of the Aged Act", and Article 2 (2) of the facts charged is modified by this court's permission, so this part of the judgment below
On the other hand, the lower court rendered a single sentence on the grounds that the above part of the facts charged against the Defendant and the remaining facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower judgment cannot be reversed in its entirety
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.