beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
D. The prosecutor and the defendant A, B, and C, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. at the time of appeal by the Defendants 1) at the time of appeal by the Defendants A (the misunderstanding of facts and unreasonable sentencing), the Defendant was in a state of piling up to C and their daily activities. The Defendant’s pocket book cited in the process of supposed fish in order to get out of it, is merely likely that the Defendant would have been in the face of C, and there was no possibility of bringing up C as stated in its reasoning. Moreover, the punishment (the fine of KRW 700,000) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable. 2) Defendant B (the misunderstanding of facts and unreasonable sentencing) and the Defendant did not bring a victim A, such as the time of original adjudication.
In addition, the punishment (fine 500,000) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
3) Defendant C (unfair punishment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable and unfair. 4) Defendant D (Definite) did not seem to have expressed the victim A as the time of original adjudication.
B. The Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant A ( fine of KRW 700,00) and B (fine of KRW 500,00) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts was made by the police investigation, and Defendant C made a statement in the court of original instance that “A saw her face by hand.” (Evidence No. 26 pages). The court of original instance also made a statement in the court of original instance that “A saw her face with a good size that is attributable to the Defendant.” P made a police investigation, and P made a statement in the court of original instance that “A her face was her face once by hand (Evidence No. 51 page).” The court of original instance made a statement in the court of original instance that “A her head was her hand (Evidence No. 51 page) was her hand.” The court of original instance also made a statement in the court of original instance that “A her head was her hand (No. 127 through 129 pages) with the object cited by Defendant C her hand (Evidence No. 127 through 129), and I made a statement in the court of original instance that “A her face was her face with C.” (Evidence No. 70).