For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted of the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the purpose of retaliation.

In a case where litigation procedures, such as detention of a defendant to secure his/her personal illness, are in violation of the law, the right to defense of the defendant or his/her defense counsel is essentially infringed and it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the judgment.

As long as it does not reach the degree of seen, it cannot be said that it itself constitutes an unlawful act affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Do1003, Jul. 23, 1985; 94Do129, Nov. 4, 1994, etc.). According to the records, detention against the defendant is deemed legitimate, and the judgment of the court below is not justified because the defendant's right of defense is essentially infringed in the course of physical detention.

In addition, there were errors to the extent that

It does not appear.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal disputing the violation of the law regarding the issuance and execution of detention warrant against the defendant cannot be accepted.

Whether to adopt the application for examination of evidence is not necessary by the court at the discretion of the court

In determining the seal, an investigation may not be conducted (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 2011, etc.). Thus, even if the lower court did not accept the Defendant’s application for witness, it erred by the lower court.

subsection (b) of this section.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.