beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
As to the crime of interference with the business of the victim E in the judgment of the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s sentence imposed by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor 1) Regarding the part not guilty (hereinafter “instant dispute”), the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant not guilty of the instant dispute, despite the victim C’s legal statement alone, was erroneous by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on April 12, 2013 to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of attack and the crime of interference with business in the Busan District Court on April 12, 2013, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 20, 2013. Thus, the part of the crime of interference with business against victims E (No. 2 No. 2 of the crime list in the judgment of the court below) in the judgment of the court below as to the crime of interference with business against victims E as stated in the judgment of the court below was stated that the date and time of the crime was stated "by April 2013, 2013," but the above victim stated that "by the police the date and time of this part of the crime was "by April 22:00, April 2013, April 201," and the police also stated that "by the defendant was "by the police about April 21, 2013 to 2013."
Since the crime of conflict and the crime of interference with business, etc. for which judgment and judgment became final and conclusive, in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a punishment shall be imposed on the crime of interference with business against victims E in consideration of equity in the case where a concurrent judgment is to be rendered pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from reversal.
However, as above.