beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (i) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, each statement at E and D’s police to the effect that “the Defendant sold phiphones,” which the lower court found as evidence of guilt, is false, and the Defendant’s body photograph is not caused by a injection increase for the administration of phiphones, but caused by a disease of the Defendant’s “blood reduction certificate” or the extension of the term.
In addition, in light of the fact that the judicial police officer issued a warrant of arrest against the defendant on March 9, 2017, prior to the time when the defendant's barphone was administered, and then arrested the defendant on March 28, 2017, after the time when the defendant's barphone was administered, the judicial police officer seems to have known that the above statement was false, such as E, while the defendant's dwelling was already known through E's statement, the arrest warrant of this case was unlawful in requesting the arrest warrant by stating the defendant's dwelling as "non-standing" on the summary of the criminal facts and stating the defendant's dwelling as "non-standing" on the arrest warrant of this case based on the aforementioned false statement of E, etc.
In addition, the judicial police officer searched the defendant's residence for two hours at the time of the arrest of the defendant, but did not discover phiphones, and caused the defendant to commit an illegal act of leading the defendant to the suspicion of carrying phiphones by taking the knife with the defendant's room and back the knife.
The statements made by the defendant in custody during the above illegal arrest are inadmissible as evidence obtained illegally.
See The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (the additional collection of KRW 200,00,000,000) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the illegality of arrest, etc.