beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Inasmuch as the prosecutor’s statement (the fact-finding) is consistent and specific, and credibility is recognized, the Defendant’s intimidation can be acknowledged as having been threatening E.
B. The Defendant (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, one year of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts, E's statement is the only evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged, as stated in this part of the facts charged, it is hard to believe E's statement or there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, as stated in the court below, in light of the following: (a) the police officer dispatched to the scene was unable to find an omission at the site according to the speech of E; (b) it is unclear whether E was an omission or an omission of its object by expressing that the Defendant was a hmon or a hon; and (c) on the other hand, the defendant has consistently stated that there was no fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on E while recognizing all the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on E from the scene of the crime to the court below; and (d) in light of the fact that it is difficult to believe and consistently stated that there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged. Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, it is recognized that there are extenuating circumstances in terms of the circumstance, since the Defendant is against the Defendant, and the Defendant deposited KRW 500,00 for the victim, and the Defendant reported the Defendant’s objection to the Defendant’s application with the Defendant, and assaulted the victim by contingency. However, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant committed several assaults against the aged 72 by drinking and drinking, and the injury suffered by the victim cannot be deemed minor, and that there is no agreement with the victim, and that the Defendant was a single criminal offense (a fine and a three-time criminal offense).