Text
The judgment below
Of the judgment below, the part concerning the crime No. 1-e and the crime No. 2 and No. 3 (excluding the part of collection) in the judgment below shall be reversed.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the fact-misunderstanding 1) the purchase of a philophone on October 22, 2015 and the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by a philosophopon on November 2015, 2015, the Defendant did not have purchased, received, or accepted a philophone as shown in the facts charged in this part.
2) With respect to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury), the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges prior to the modification of the indictment without reflecting the changes in the indictment on the part of the facts charged.
3) The court below erred by misunderstanding the above facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Unreasonable sentencing (No. 1 of the judgment of the court below)
(a)bed;
Offenses: Crimes No. 1-e., and Crimes No. 2, and No. 3: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and additional collection of 816,00 won) are too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact: (a) Except in the case where there is an obvious clerical error in the entries in the trial protocol, the entries in the trial protocol as of the trial date are proved only by the protocol; and (b) its probative value is absolute in light of the aforementioned legal principles, which are determined by the court below’s determination that materials other than the trial protocol are not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do14868, Dec. 1, 2016). In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant purchased, received, and received, a written phone as of the facts charged, and thus, this part of the defendant’s assertion is without merit.
(1) On the seventh trial date of the lower judgment, the lower court stated as follows: “The notice of the decision that permission for modification of an indictment is granted on March 8, 2018 of the case No. 1930 of the 2017 High Court Order No. 1930; and the defense counsel is below.