beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) Defendant A did not have conspired with Defendant B, etc. in relation to assault against the victim.
The Defendants did not commit violence or intimidation to the extent of suppressing the victim’s resistance.
The wound that the victim suffered does not constitute the injury of robbery.
Defendant
A did not have the possibility of injury.
(2) Defendant B did not assault or threaten the victim’s resistance to the extent of suppressing the victim’s resistance.
The wound that the victim suffered does not constitute the injury of robbery.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment for each of the Defendants) on the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants
A. Recognizing the facts found by the court below and the court below (the court below adopted each suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the police against the defendants and the defendant C as evidence of conviction, but each of the above suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the court below is acknowledged following facts in light of the legal principles of the Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5040 Decided June 24, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1409 Decided February 25, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2865 Decided July 9, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4389 Decided September 24, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2001Do397 Decided September 28, 201, each of the above suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the court below cannot be used as evidence of conviction.
(1) Defendant A (C) and B (C) and Co-defendant C (C) of the lower court (C) were gathered on August 19, 2014, which was the day before the crime was committed, around the first day of August 19, 2014.
They came to know that G(12 years of age) was to engage in commercial sex acts in the form of victim H(ma, 37 years of age) and conditions only using smartphone display cases.
(2) The Defendants and C carried G in a passenger car driven by Defendant B and agreed with the victim.