beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The misunderstanding of facts by a police officer arrested the Defendant as an offender, and plucked or plucked the Defendant’s arms, which come up with a schill, in order to take the lock, and the Defendant was damaged in the course of schilling the shoulder scke, and thus, the Defendant did not intentionally injure the schill.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court rejected the judgment on the “a summary of evidence” in detail.
In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the court below’s finding of facts and determination of the court below is justifiable, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, H made a clear statement to the effect that “A defendant was unable to wear a locker due to the breakdown of patrol doors,” the investigation report (see, e.g., No. 29 of the evidence record) prepared on the process of the use of the locker after the occurrence of the case also corresponds to this. ② In light of the overall statement made by the Defendant at the prosecutor’s office, the Defendant was unable to accurately memory all the circumstances, including the process of the occurrence of the case, while under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the principle of trial-oriented and directness of unreasonable sentencing, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).