beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the crime of this case was committed by Defendant (1) with the fact that the Defendant stolen the NAS scoo-coo vehicle in the state of drinking, and even though it was not caused by the realization of the thief, the lower court recognized the habitual nature. Such judgment of the lower court is erroneous in misapprehending of facts or misapprehending of legal principles.
(2) Even though the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, under the lack of capacity to discern things or make decisions, the lower court did not recognize mental and physical disorder.
(3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (a factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle), the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, although it found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged that “the Defendant habitually stolen the vehicle license plate of this case.” In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Determination
A. (1) As to the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant is identical to the allegation of mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail in the “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” column. In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court’s determination is justified, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine is without merit.
(2) In light of the substance of the instant crime as to the assertion of mental disorder, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and thus, did not have any or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.
Therefore, it is necessary.