폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습협박)등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant (i.e., mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) committed by mistake of facts or the instant crime in a state of drunken and thus, the Defendant cannot be recognized as a habit of violence on the sole basis of the fact that the Defendant had been punished several occasions due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.
B. The punishment of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(b)the first instance sentence of the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable;
2. Determination:
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Seoul Central District Court on December 11, 2007, and was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Seoul Central District Court on August 12, 2010, and was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of intrusion at the Seoul Central District Court on July 4, 2013, and completed the execution of the sentence on October 15, 2015, and the crime of this case was recognized as a repeated crime during the period of punishment as prescribed by Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a repeated crime during the period of punishment).
Therefore, the crime of this case is subject to aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 2(3)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and in this case, the defendant does not need to be separately recognized as a habit of violence.
I would like to say.
Ultimately, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the premise that the facts charged in this case should be separately recognized as a habit of violence is without merit.
B. The Defendant and the prosecutor’s each unfair sentencing.