beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles do not constitute a assault by the victim E due to brupt as in the criminal facts of the 2015 order 600 case (hereinafter “the part of the 1 rejection”), and the above brupt does not constitute a dangerous object. No injury was inflicted upon the victim as in the criminal facts of the 2015 order 1232 case (hereinafter “the part of the 2 rejection”) as in the judgment of the court below, and there was no assault by the police officer as in the second order 2015 order 1727 case (hereinafter “the 3 rejection part”), and the judgment of the court below convicts all of the parts of the 1 or 3 rejection part, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. As to the part 1 denied, the lower court determined as follows: (a) whether the Defendant assaulted the Victim E due to a brupt; (b) whether the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court was integrated; and (c) whether the witness N was a witness at an investigative agency, “The Defendant sent the Victim E, which was written on the toilet floor, was taken several times through a series of public gatherings.”
Therefore, he stated that he was reported to the police, and there was no motive for N to gather the first defendant who was a drinking guest, ② a photograph taken by the victim E at the time corresponds to the facts charged, ③ the victim E appeared in the court of original instance to the effect that he was present in the court of original instance and stated that he did not use his body on the toilet floor, but the victim E was present in the court of original instance to the effect that he did not use his body on the toilet floor. However, the victim E did not appear in the investigative agency.