beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On March 3, 2016, the Defendant did not commit such a crime for the purpose of retaliation or cancellation of a complaint against the victim with respect to an injury to the victim on March 3, 2016.
B. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder having weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol.
(c)
The punishment of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.
2. Determination
A. 1) First of all, the defendant is dissatisfied with the existence of the purpose of retaliation or the purpose of revoking the complaint necessary for the establishment of the retaliation crime of this case when he was convicted of the facts. However, the defendant already led to a confession of all the above crimes at the court below, and there is no reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness or credibility of such confession.
2) In addition, whether there was a purpose to establish the retaliation crime of this case against the Defendant ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s speech and behavior, character and conduct characteristics of the Defendant and ordinary behavior, predictability of the crime, possibility of prediction of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9030, Sept. 26, 2014). According to such evidence, the lower court’s adoption and investigation by examining the following: (a) the details and degree of disadvantage suffered by the Defendant due to the Defendant’s response to the Defendant against the act committed as retaliation (i.e., the provision of proviso to investigation, etc.); (b) the background leading up to the time and place of the crime; (c) whether the Defendant and the victim used the criminal tools, such as deadly weapons, etc.; (d) the method and mode of the crime; (d) the details and mode of the crime; and (e) provision of the proviso to investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9030, Sept. 26, 2014).