The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
The judgment below
Part of acquittal.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the Defendant’s statements of K police and statements at the time of telephone investigation by the prosecutor’s mother, who is the victim of a mistake of facts against the acquitted portion of special lineal ascendant injury, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s mother carried a knife, which is a dangerous object, and displayed the Defendant’s attitude that would inflict harm on the body or life of the
B. The sentencing of the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too heavy or unreasonable.
2. The court below made a very detailed judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts while finding the prosecutor not guilty of intimidation against special lineal ascendants who brought a public prosecution. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's determination that there is insufficient evidence to deem that the defendant had threatened F and K, a lineal ascendant, is justified, and it does not seem that there was an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below.
This part of the Prosecutor’s assertion is not accepted.
3. Both the prosecutor and the defendant on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties and the judgment of the court below are on the grounds that the sentencing of the court below is unfair and unjustifiable.
In the first instance trial, the defendant agreed to recover from damage to the victims other than his parents, K and F, the parent of the victim and the defendant, the 6.85 million won, the fraud amount, the amount of fraud amount to 2.1.2 million won, the amount of the borrowed credit card fraud amount to 2.9 million won, the amount of the borrowed credit card fraud amount to 2.9 million won, the amount of the borrowed money with security, and the prosecutor argued that the sentencing of the court below is unfair if the crime of intimidation for special existence was found guilty. In light of all the above, it is judged that the punishment of the court below is inappropriate.
4. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.