beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the part concerning the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation) in the original judgment) and the defendant and the candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter "defendants") have found the victim to be bullying and wanting to resist his mobile phone on the day of the crime in this case, and did not have the purpose of intimidation or retaliation against the victim.
B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in the habitual condition due to the injury and injury of the Defendant.
C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Part 1 of the case against the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the court below, and the court below did not accept the above assertion in detail. Examining the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below in light of the records, the court below can sufficiently recognize the facts that the defendant found the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the victim who reported a special injury incident and threatened him/her with the same statement as the facts constituting the crime in the court below. The court below's decision is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant. 2) The court below's decision on the allegation of defectiveness was duly adopted and investigated by evidence as follows: (i) the defendant was a police officer at the time of committing the crime of retaliation in this case, and (ii) the defendant committed an act to conceal the crime by hiding the view that the police officer was in possession of the defendant, and (iii) the defendant was judged to have been a state of mental disability at the time of committing the crime in this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime.