beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles on the injury caused by indecent act by compulsion by the victim I’s chest, and forced indecent act by force. However, the victim did not go against the defendant’s arms by force as stated in the facts charged, and did not suffer from the mouths of his fingersy and the bones of his fingers while resisting the defendant’s arms by hand. After the completion of the crime of indecent act by compulsion by force, the victim suffered from her sonm or her fingers while doing so by force after the commission of indecent act by force. Thus, the crime of bodily injury by indecent act by force is not established.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
B) As to the special intimidation, the Defendant collected a knife “a knife with a knife with a knife,” rather than a knife, rather than a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with the victim K.
3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court specifically stated the following: (i) the victim I from the first police’s statement to the effect that “The Defendant sold the Defendant’s arms in the process of resisting the Defendant’s indecent act by compulsion; and (ii) the victim I left the arms in the process of resisting the Defendant’s indecent act by compulsion; and (iii) the Defendant consistently stated the same purport in the lower court’s trial.”