beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
The pronouncement of sentence against B shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles [Attachment 2 3, 4, 5, and 6] The transmission of text messages of the annexed crime list (2) Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 which the court below found guilty on the judgment of the court below is conducted on the extension line between Defendant B and Defendant B, and there is no repetition as it was conducted on the victim’s text messages, and it cannot be viewed as causing fears or apprehensions to the victim. Although it is not a domestic affairs, Defendant B’s act is merely a hummatic to the victim with one’s husband. Thus, this part of the facts charged is not unlawful since it does not violate social rules. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that found Defendant B guilty on this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the part as indicated in [Attachment 1] 1 to 28] Defendant A’s act was committed at a defensive level that Defendant A’s family, one’s own birth, was in distress due to the victim’s incompetence, and thus, is not unlawful since it did not violate social rules. Nevertheless, the judgment below which found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is excessively unreasonable.
C. Prosecutor (Defendant B) 1) misjudgments of facts or misapprehension of legal principles [Attachment 1, 2, and 7 Nos. 1, 2, and 7, which are the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal, are sent to the victim repeatedly on the grounds that the victim was in in incompetence relationship with the husband of Defendant B, and Defendant B.