beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum of six months and a short of four months.
Reasons
1. The lower court rendered a judgment on the charge of special intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, guilty as to the damage to public goods, and dismissed public prosecution as to intimidation, and the prosecutor appealed only to the part not guilty among the lower judgment.
The judgment below
Among the public prosecution, the dismissal part was excluded from the scope of the trial of the party as the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below), the defendant's act of misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below), which is sufficient to bring about fear to the general public
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unhutiled and unreasonable.
3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. Under the summary of this part of the facts charged, the corresponding part of the “judgment” is indicated.
B. In full view of the circumstances in the judgment below, the lower court determined that it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional threat to the Defendant, and that there was no reasonable doubt that there was an intentional threat, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.
C. 1) In the crime of intimidation in the relevant legal doctrine, the term “intimid the crime of intimidation” means a threat of harm to an extent generally likely to cause fear to a person by viewing it as a matter of view, and an intentional act as a subjective constituent element thereof is a perception and acknowledgement of an actor’s threat of harm to such an extent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2102, May 10, 1991; 2006Do2311, Jun. 15, 2006). The act of notifying a person of harm to a degree of harm and injury may be notified through the same method without Hanmadi’s word, or, depending on the case, it is ordinarily intended to use a normal language (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14316, Jan. 27, 2011).