모욕등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and a fine of one million won.
The defendant above.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts (the first judgment) even though the defendant presented an identification card at the request of the police officer called out when the defendant was called for with the owner of Maart at a discount, the police officer was involved in the act on the earth by carrying out only the defendant's lock.
After that, the police officer left the Defendant, who did not do any act in the earth area, to follow the locker, and thereby, left the Defendant, who complained of the pain of the arms, for more than 2 to 3 hours.
Accordingly, the defendant made the police officers who abuse public power as above, to take a bath.
Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the lower court did not unilaterally believe the police officer’s speech and did not confirm the closed circuit television (CCTV) in the district and did not err by misapprehending the fact.
B. Unreasonable sentencing [2] The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of probation, probation, community service order and order to attend a lecture in October) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. First of the judgment ex officio, the defendant appealed in relation to the judgment of the court below, and the court decided to consolidate the above two cases, and all of the crimes of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be imposed. Thus, all of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.
B. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of fact: Provided, however, the above assertion of mistake of fact is still subject to the judgment of the court of this court, and this is examined below.
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court: (a) prevented the Defendant, who was on November 11, 2012, was entering the lower court’s parking lot adjacent to the above discount line around the 11:00 of November 11, 201; and (b) the Defendant.