beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant case 1) With respect to the crime of special intimidation under Article 3 of the Criminal facts in the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding of facts, Defendant and Defendant for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”).
(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the grounds that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of unjust sentencing (one year of imprisonment) on the grounds that the sentence (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court was too unreasonable.
B. Considering the fact that the Defendant acquired a management consultant qualification and provided management consulting to local business operators for at least 20 years, it is reasonable to allow the Defendant to receive medical treatment and custody under the protection of his/her family members rather than medical treatment and custody. Therefore, the Defendant’s medical treatment and custody order for the Defendant is unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of special intimidation by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment as to the allegation of mistake of facts regarding the part of the Defendant case.
The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, namely, ① there are parts requiring repair of “K”-based bread as the place of crime in this part.
In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the defendant requested repair in the victim's side, and ② the defendant: (a) he listened to the phrase, "I would like to write the bread in the said bread house," "I would like to do so," and "I would like to do so, I would like to do so," and "I would like to do so, I would like to write off the hacker at his own home, and let the victim go again; and (b) in light of these circumstances, it is difficult to see that the defendant was hacked to repair the broken part of the said bread house, such as the defendant's assertion; and (c) as above, the defendant who is an adult male, is a woman.