beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) Although Defendant A had not inflicted an injury due to the misunderstanding of the facts, Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts, Defendant A was guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.
2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A, who was improper in sentencing, is too unreasonable.
B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1), although Defendant B could sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant B entered the victim’s house, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant B, which was improper in sentencing, is too uncomfortable.
2. Determination
A. Determination on Defendant A and Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts 1) In full view of the following circumstances, which were duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the victim B, the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below, the victim B, the fact that the victim B was sealed at the time of the accident, the victim B reported to the police immediately after the accident, and the victim B was diagnosed, etc., the fact that Defendant A suffered bodily injury can be sufficiently recognized. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant A is without merit.
2) Determination as to the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: Defendant B entered the victim’s house math of the victim’s house through a gate with cement mortar attached to the victim A before the victim’s house around 06:00 on May 13, 2016, and continuously open the cement powder to the victim A.
By avoiding disturbance, it intrudes upon the victim A's residence.
B) The lower court determined that the prosecutor charged the Defendant B with the act of intrusion upon residence after the Defendant B committed an assault by spreading cement dust to the victim A.