beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the violation of the Child Uniforms Act (child abuse) / Defendant’s giving and receiving male birth G and text messages to the same church held by the victim E who had a relationship with the Defendant at the time, and whether it does not contact with the male.
As a result, the victim took part of the text message, etc. and brought the cell phone cited by the victim under the upper limit of appraisal to the cell phone floor, and did not commit an act of abuse, such as breaking up the victim’s inside and outside of the body, or putting up his hair, etc.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of one year, the observation of protection, and the community service order of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the part of innocence), even if there is a consistent statement as to the fact that the defendant was protruding the victim's body, and there is a difference in the detailed parts, such as time and later relationship, there is sufficient room for the victim to be faced with, and the defendant's statement also is not consistent, it is recognized that the defendant was walking the victim's body at the time, and even if the defendant could sufficiently escape from the situation where the damaged victim's body was pushed down to the bottom, it cannot be viewed as a justifiable act where the illegality is denied as a passive resistance of the exercise of tangible power to the extent that the injured victim's body was pushed down to the bottom of the victim's body.
2) The above sentence committed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneased and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.