특수협박
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles: ① in the court of original judgment, G made a statement to the effect that all statements made to its investigative agency at the court of original judgment are contents from Ma, the office leader of the business place in which he operates; ③ also in the court of original judgment, L made a statement to the investigative agency at the court of original judgment that all the statements made to the investigation agency at the court of original instance were contents from G; eventually, each statement made in G and L investigative agency at the investigation agency was written in the court of original judgment; and each of the above statements made in the investigation agency at the investigation agency was inadmissible because it did not meet the requirements of Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act; ② even if the admissibility of the statements is recognized, the contents of the statements made in L and G investigation agency as if they were consistent with the facts in this case are still changing, and it is difficult to recognize its credibility because they were not inconsistent with other witnesses’ statements; ③ The defendant consistently denied the facts in this case from the investigative agency and violated the law of logic and rule of free evaluation and, thereby, erred in the fact.
B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Whether each statement made to G and L investigation agencies constitutes a professional statement or not, first of all, the statement that corresponds to the facts charged against the Defendant in relation to the statement made to G investigation agencies in G, and the statement made to G investigation agencies in accordance with the facts charged against the Defendant in relation to “A, as stated in its reasoning, when the Defendant takes food knife to G while threatening G while threatening him, the Defendant’s view was examined in front of the J main point.