특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(강도상해등재범)등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) On September 2, 2016, the lower court did not agree with the Defendant to have the victim, and did not intend to commit robbery. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) As to the facts charged of robbery on July 21, 2016, the sentence of the lower court is too heavy [the Daejeon District Court 2016 High Court 346, 371, 2016 High Court 201 and 20 High Court 20: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years, attached order 10 years, attached order 10 years, Daejeon District Court 2016 High Court 14: a fine of 6 million won: a public prosecutor 1). In addition, according to the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor, the lower court acquitted him/her of this part of the facts charged, although it is sufficiently recognized, according to the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor, even though this part of the facts charged are proven. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The lower court’s unfair sentence of sentencing is too minor [the Daejeon District Court 2016 High Court 346, 371 (Joint), 2016 High Court 20 (Joint)]. 2. Determination
A. On September 2, 2016, the lower court acknowledged the facts indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted by the lower court as to the part concerning the robbery in light of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and, in light of such facts, sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had a stone stone, etc. and the head of the victim was the price.
The decision was determined.
In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion
subsection (b) of this section.
2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to whether the Defendant had had the intention to commit robbery, the lower court determined that the Defendant would keep the female victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her