beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The Defendant had been aware of the fact that he had participated in the auction of golf membership by preparing money necessary for the bid with Q, a real pre-existing owner, and participated in the auction of golf membership.
The obstruction of auction does not constitute a crime of interference with auction, since it was not a price for interference with auction but a price for interference with auction, and the successful bidder in customary auction was paid to other participants in the auction process with Q's request. It does not constitute a crime of interference with auction.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.
B) The Defendant’s special injury to the Victim F is a difficult way, and the victim F, who did not pay his/her debt to him/her properly, sees that the victim F, who did not pay his/her debt, is drinking alcohol, and expressed decentralization in a timely fashion, was the victim F, and the Defendant did not have any doubt from the beginning to the point of view that he/she would inflict the injury on the victim.
Nevertheless, without examining the facts specifically, the judgment of the court below which recognized this part of the facts charged on the basis of only the victim F's statement is erroneous as a misunderstanding of facts.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspension of execution, observation of protection, and community service order of 120 hours) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Composition and Activity of Organizations, etc.) (Crime No. 1) was committed by the Defendant (Crime No. 1). The facts charged in the instant case were that the Defendant constituted a Wmn organization, which is a criminal organization, and served as a conciliation staff. The lower court rejected all of the evidence corresponding to the facts charged. In addition, the Defendant’s integrated formation of the Hamman on July 2008, as well as the Mamnman’s 2010 staff.