beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The Defendant, as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, is not guilty of mistake of fact in the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, even though the Defendant was dissatisfing with the victim-owned taxi by hand, although it was not destroyed by the fact that it was damaged.
The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to impose the punishment (300,000 won).
Judgment
The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: ① The victim was found to be suck back following the Defendant’s scambling of the driver’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant taxi”) in the court of the lower court, i.e., the victim’s scam.
In full view of the fact that “the head of a Si/Gun/Gu automatically connects and checks the head of a Si/Gun/Gu” and “the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall come to 130,000 won to 150,000 won from the repair cost,” the head of the Si/Gun/Gu also submitted a written statement to the investigation agency to the effect that “the head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall automatically connect the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu,” and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall submit the written statement to the investigation agency to the effect that “the head of the Si/Gun/Gu,” and the written statement to the effect that the victim was issued on April 13, 2015 after the occurrence of the instant case, is indicated as KRW 94,050 in the written statement (Evidence No. 9 of the Evidence) that destroyed the distance between the taxi owned by the victim,
There is no particular evidence to acknowledge that the defendant made an agreement with the victim or made an effort to recover the damage, and otherwise the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.
There are no new data to be presented in the course of the assessment of sentencing or in the course of the assessment of the sentencing of the political party (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).