beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not interfere with the victim's loan work by force, and even if there was no intention to interfere with the business, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment ex officio (Defendant A) prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the Prosecutor applied for permission to amend the Bill of Amendment to the Bill of Amendment to the Bill to “On March 16, 2016, around 08:00” of the facts charged against Defendant A, which was the first instance court, and the subject of the judgment is changed by this court’s permission. In this regard, the part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
B. From the judgment of the court below as to the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, even if there are grounds for ex officio reversal as above, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined together with Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts
In the lower court’s assertion as to the grounds of appeal in this case, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion and its determination in detail under the title “Determination on the Defendants’ and their defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the lower court. In so doing, it is recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court on the following circumstances: (a) Defendant B received a request from the police to deduct the Defendant from the Defendant’s vehicle (GV cruise) from the Defendant’s vehicle (GV cruise) on December 29, 2015, on the grounds that the lower court received a request from the Defendant’s investigative agency around 09:00 on December 29, 2015.