폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning Defendant C and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.
Defendant
C. 2 years of imprisonment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants (unfairness) 1) The imprisonment (one year and eight months) imposed by Defendant A (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. 2) The respective imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment: one year and six months, and two months of imprisonment) imposed by Defendant C by the lower court (the first instance court) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant A’s attempted crime), it can be acknowledged that Defendant A provided the victim G with heavy amount of money.
The judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant on the attempted crime of extortion.
2. Judgment on Defendant A
A. In a criminal trial for determining a mistake of facts, the recognition of facts should be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not more likely to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to reach such a level that makes the aforementioned conviction possible, the determination should be based on the defendant’s interest even if there is a suspicion of guilt.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). A prosecutor indicted G to the effect that “If he fails to do so, the president may become aware of this third person.” Moreover, he indicted G to the effect that “the president was fluent,” stating that “the president was fluent.” and that G was fluent, and stated to the effect that he was fluent and fluent from the Defendant at the time of making a statement by an investigative agency.
However, since the investigation agency, the Defendant consistently stated that “the Defendant has consistently made the phrase “the Defendant’s working group”, but this does not mean that it does not intend to threaten G, but that “the Defendant may not leave the police officer on the ground of the fact that the Defendant participated in the work,” upon request from G to talk about detailed information from the police officer, and that “the Defendant may not leave the police officer on the ground that he participated in the work,” and that G used the test and information on a vehicle that goes on.