beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
The Defendant is not guilty. The prosecutor of the lower judgment regarding the acquitted portion.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s beauty room business by avoiding the disturbance of 20 minutes, such as taking a bath as described in the facts charged, etc. against the victim, and thereby obstructing the victim’s beauty room business. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.
(2) The punishment of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (300,000 won) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (as to the injury caused by negligence) ① The defendant's mistake of fact (as to the injury caused by negligence) was caused by the victim's injury due to the wind that caused the victim to be faced with the laundry, and thus, it should be recognized that the relation between the defendant's breach of duty of care and the victim's injury is recognized. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
(2) The punishment of the lower court that is improper in sentencing is too uneasible.
2. Determination
A. (1) On December 7, 2016, from around 17:24, to around 18:04, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant was guilty of the Defendant’s factual facts, and at the same time, around 20 minutes of the victim’s beauty room business by openly insulting the victim by putting the victim’s laundry in front of the cosmetic room by inserting the civil petition to the Gu office and removing two laundbing signboards, among female customers in the cosmetic laundbing room, and by putting the victim’s laundry, “Ie the la Ba, Ie the end of the judgment, Ie the la, Ie the la, Ie the end of the judgment.”
The lower court determined that all of the charges were guilty on this part of the facts charged, based on the macrosual evidence.
The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant (this case laundry and beauty room) acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the insult.