beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A 1) Inasmuch as the Defendant knew of the fact that he was the victim and got into the toilet, there was no intention to intrude the room at the time, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of intrusion part. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The Defendant with mental and physical disorder was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the act as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime of the lower judgment (a dangerous
3) In full view of the following: (a) the sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable; (b) the prosecutor’s 1) the victim’s statement of misunderstanding of facts (related to the part concerning the Defendant A’s attempted rape) and the name of the said Defendant’s statement on CCTV images, and the above Defendant’s vindications lack credibility; and (b) the Defendant’s explanation was proved without reasonable doubt that the said Defendant
Although the court below was not guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) Comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the statements by victims and witnesses, criminal implements, and the whole process of fighting, etc., the act of assaulting A by carrying a dangerous object sealed by the above defendant as well as the act of attack at the same time is deemed as an act of defense, and thus, it cannot be constituted self-defense or excessive defense. However, even if the above act of the defendant constitutes self-defense or not, it constitutes excessive defense under Article 21(3) of the Criminal Act, and the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on self-defense, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thereby, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on self-defense.