beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (as to the conviction), misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, and ① In the case of auction as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “auction of this case”), the owner applied for an auction on the secured claim which has not arrived at the time limit, and did not notify the owner of the commencement of auction. As such, since the owner failed to meet the requirements for commencement of auction, it does not constitute a crime of interference with auction for a normal auction only.
② In addition, the Defendant was entitled to actually exercise the right of retention by remodelling construction on the building as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant building”), and thus, the Defendant applied for the right of retention as stated in the facts charged.
In addition, it cannot be said that it is “a deceptive scheme” as stipulated in Article 315 of the Criminal Act.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the following: (a) a public prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts as to the acquittal portion) who is a document holder has consistently made a statement from an investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that “only lent a seal imprint to the defendant upon the request of the investigative agency to obtain an explanation on the preparation of the document or there is no permission therefor; (b) the statement of P corresponds to this; and (c) the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he/she led to the confession of this part of the facts charged, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged for the use of a private document forgery and the use of the document for the investigation, but the court below acquitted the Defendant
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. First of all, determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the above argument ① According to the letter of inquiry into the fact-finding inquiry about the No. 1 of the first party deliberation, F, the owner of the instant building, commenced the auction procedure of this case.