beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of conviction and violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act shall be reversed.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape with the Disabled) on the ground that the victim's statement on the fact that he/she had sexual intercourse in a passenger car is consistent, but rejected the credibility of the victim's statement on the ground that he/she had sexual intercourse in a passenger car and acquitted him/her on this part of the facts charged, and thus there is an error of mistake of facts. 2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act. The court below interpreted the "credit card acquired through taking advantage of, embezzlement, deception or deception" under Article 70 (1) 4 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act as limited to the credit card which is excluded from his/her possession or possession against his/her will without being expressed by the owner
3) The lower court’s sentencing is unreasonable because it is too unfasible to the sentencing. 2. The prosecutor of the amendment to the indictment of an unfair sentencing is in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the primary charge of rape of persons with disabilities; however, in October 2012, the Defendant was in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the primary charge of rape of persons with disabilities); the Defendant was in violation of the preliminary charge of sexual intercourse in the Daejeon-gu Office No. 509, Daejeon-gu Office No. 509, the Defendant was in violation of the victim D, who was a victim with a mental disorder of the first time at his age club, and was unable to understand the intent of the person under age 31, without consistency or logic; and the Defendant was in violation of the other person’s intention and tried to return it to the victim, while inducing the victim to do so, and was unable or difficult to resist due to mental disorder by having sexual intercourse once.
"The facts charged are charged."