A. According to the facts and the content of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant may fully recognize the purpose of retaliation.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the purpose of retaliation against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In criminal proceedings conducted in the form of a participatory trial conducted in order to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judicial judgment on the assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles, collective opinion presented to the full bench on the recognition of facts is a recommended effect to assist the judge of the fact-finding court who has full power over the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts under the principle of substantial direct examination and court-oriented trials. If a jury participated in the whole process of fact-finding, such as examination of witness witness, and the verdict of innocence issued by unanimous opinion on the admission of evidence, such as credibility of witness statement, and fact-finding, are adopted in accordance with the trial court's unanimous opinion, the first instance court's determination on the admission of evidence and fact-finding conducted through such procedure should be respected unless it appears that the new evidence examination in the appellate court is sufficiently and clearly opposed and clearly opposite to it, in light of the purport and spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination and the principle of court-oriented trials.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14065 Decided March 25, 2010). The health class and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor regarding the instant case may be sufficiently and sufficiently opposed to the judgment of the lower court, even if examining the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.