Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not specify the victim’s work partner’s phrase “in-house relationship” and expressed “personal relationship” to the victim’s work partner. In addition, it is doubtful whether the said words cannot be viewed as having a possibility of spreading in light of the fact that the person is a work partner, and whether they were actually disseminated or not. 2) The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
B. Although the letters sent repeatedly to the victim by the prosecutor (not guilty part) cause fear or apprehension, the court below acquitted the victim of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant
A. In light of the following circumstances, the argument that the defendant did not make a factual inquiry in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below is without merit.
① The F, a working partner of the victim, drafted a written statement to the effect that “The defendant was working in the hospital like the victim and was in an internal relationship with him/her while finding the victim as the person who had been working in the same hospital as the victim,” and that “The decision with the former wife who was divorced from the defendant due to the victim was broken,” and that the statement is credibility in the statement to the effect that it is not known if the defendant did not speak the F.
② Even if the Defendant did not directly use the word “in-house relationship”, it is merely a different expression from the victim that “in-house relationship” means “in-house relationship between the former and the former” and “in-house relationship between the latter and the latter are damaged due to the disturbance of the victim.”
The defendant also is also an investigative agency.