A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty portion in the judgment of the court below) The Defendant was investigated by the police by the victim regarding the larceny case of the Defendant, and found it at the victim’s service room after two days from the date of the investigation by the police, and reported to another police box.

no longer than 1000

The phrase “,” etc. and satisfing a plaque.

The defendant may fully recognize that there has been the purpose of retaliation against the provision of the proviso to investigation by the victim.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and observation of protection) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles as to whether there was a purpose of retaliation against the defendant should be made by comprehensively taking into account various objective circumstances, such as the defendant's personal relation with the victim, the possibility of expectation of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime (hereinafter referred to as "providing the proviso to investigation, etc.") such as the provision of the proviso to investigation, the contents and degree of disadvantage suffered by the defendant due to the response of the victim during the investigation or trial, changes in attitude in the investigation process, the provision of proviso to investigation, etc., the circumstances surrounding the defendant and the victim at the time of the crime, circumstances surrounding the crime, such as the time and place of the crime, the method and manner of the crime, the contents and manner of the crime, the provision of the proviso to investigation, etc., the behavior of the defendant and the victim up to the crime after the crime, the character and conduct of the crime, the predictability of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9030 Decided September 26, 2014).