beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of conviction against Defendant A and part on Defendant B shall be reversed respectively.
Defendant
A. Imprisonment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendants' punishment (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable as the punishment (the imprisonment of 1 and June, 3 years of probation, 160 hours of community service, 1 year and February of imprisonment, 1 year and 2 months of probation, 1 year of probation, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
B. Of the article on August 1, 2016, the entire context of the part where the expression “duplicate” was entered among the article on August 1, 2016 prepared by Defendant A, which was written by the lower court (the part not guilty against Defendant A, Defendant 1412) is that the victim was “duplicated,” and the victim could claim damages from both the hospital and the restaurant due to a separate cause. As such, the part where “the victim received double agreements” among the article is false.
Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to defamation, which judged that there was no awareness of falsity or falsity.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A and B is too unhued and unfair.
2. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (the part not guilty on the ground of 2017 High Order 1412)
A. As indicated in the summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged, it is clear that the article “the person who was on August 1, 2014,” in the summary of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, on August 1, 2016, containing the following: (a) the agreement that the injured person received from an insurance company as stated in the food poisoning symptoms after eating food at the relevant restaurant; and (b) the fact that the injured person caused the food poisoning differs from the agreement that the hospital received from the hospital and the fact that the cause of the agreement was different; and (c) Defendant A did not double cover the agreement amount; but (d) for the purpose of slandering the injured person, Defendant A stated that “the two items of the two items of the two items of the agreement” and “the two items of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below as of August 1, 2016.”
The Internet, in which articles are prepared and held.