beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on June 4, 2009 (a collective weapon, injury by deadly weapons, etc.).
Reasons
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in the instant case of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon injury). Contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical
In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the court below rejected the defendant's mental and physical disorder in the remaining facts charged except for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.) among the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of law as
Furthermore, the argument that the lower court’s failure to take into account the normal relationship constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing in the lower judgment regarding the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on June 4, 2009).
However, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the allegation that the amount of punishment on the defendant is unfair is against the above violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, injury by a deadly weapon, etc.) on June 4, 2009, for which a
Meanwhile, the lower court’s assertion that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, or misapprehension of legal principles as to the injury of the victim F on January 15, 2013 and July 25, 2013 against the victim K, and interference with the business of September 13, 2013 against the victim K, does not mean that the Defendant considered it as the grounds for appeal or that the lower court is subject to judgment ex officio.