beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant paid the upper part of the victim’s neck, but this constitutes a legitimate act as a legitimate defense or passive resistance that occurred while resisting to escape from the victim’s aggravating act.
2) With regard to the fact of damage to special property, the Defendant loaded a sand source stone more than ordinary cases at the company’s instruction, and the victim moved the truck to the vice-chief, and the sand source stone, which was loaded at the end of the driver’s seat, was cut away from the space between the driver’s seat and the loading box, and the Defendant did not intentionally destroy the property as stated in the facts charged.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. A. The summary of the facts charged 1) The injured Defendant, as an engineer of the Poke, carried a sand dump truck in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun on December 10, 2016 at the construction site for the extraction of a sand dump in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun on December 10, 201, was shocked to load a sand dump truck with a sand dump truck in the victim E (38 hump), and the injured was fump truck with the Defendant’s spoke driver’s seat and fumed with the Defendant’s spoke, and the injured victim was able to catch the victim’s timber with approximately three weeks’s cump base, spoke, spoke, etc.
2) On December 10, 2016, the Defendant destroyed special property: (a) 14:00, while doing work at the above construction site on December 10, 2016; and (b) 1, the Defendant claimed with the victim as described in the foregoing paragraph (a) was spoke and placed a large string between the dump truck driver’s seat and the loading box owned by the victim; (c) but (d) the Defendant was marked with a spokeet. However, the lower court recognized the criminal facts differently within the scope of the identity of basic factual relations.
Accordingly, the defendant is a dangerous object, and the defendant is a cream.