beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges of this case on the following grounds: (a) misunderstanding of facts; (b) the time and place stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of this case as indicated in the lower judgment; (c) the degree of power exercised by the Defendant was limited to ten minutes; (d) the degree of interference with the victim C’s diagnosis and treatment work; or (e) the degree of interference was not likely to cause interference; and (e) although there was a fact that the Defendant has given birth to the object of harmony at the time and place stated in paragraph (2) of the crime of this case as indicated in the lower judgment, there was no fact that the heat organization did not give out it; and (c) there was no assault against the victim C, such as
B. When each of the instant crimes was committed, the Defendant was suffering from mental illness, such as malmosis, etc., at the time of stopping the instant crime, and the Defendant was suffering from a mental disorder such as malmosis, hearing the right of recovery from a chemical part, and prevented each of the instant crimes, so the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder.
C. The lower court’s sentence (1.5 million won of a fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) In establishing the crime of interference with business as to the crime of interference with business, it does not require that the result of interference with business actually occurred, and is sufficient if there is a risk of causing interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002; 2008Do4228, Mar. 25, 2010). Based on the legal principles as seen above, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant, at the place of the crime, is deemed as a member of the Cneological and Council (hereinafter “instant Council”) around December 11, 2014.
After the nurse and call of the Council, it appears that the Council members of this case arrive at around 12:10 on the same day, and even if the defendant asserts, at around 12:50, the Council members of this case.