beta
Text
Defendant
A Of the first and second judgments of convictions (excluding the compensation order part) against A, all of the judgment of convictions (excluding the compensation order part).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to each conviction of Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) or the second judgment of the lower court (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”), there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as follows, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. A) As to the “the fact of injury resulting from violence” committed by the Defendant, the Defendant’s taking-off of the instant case was conducted in a free condition at an open space upon the victim’s voluntary request, and did not exercise the abnormal or excessive tangible power after September 8, 2013. In addition, it was no longer implemented after the victim’s request, and the victim did not receive treatment due to the side effect caused by the instant taking-off, and there was no problem as well as school life. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s taking-off of the instant case constitutes a justifiable act permissible under social norms.
B) As to “the fraud against the victim C,” the Defendant did not engage in deception as stated in this part of the facts charged, and the money that the victim paid to the Defendant’s church is voluntary and normal unconstitutional, not by deceiving and deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged. C) As to “the fraud by the victim J” and “an act of intimidation around April 13, 2013,” the Defendant was returned from the J, with the intent of the victim. As such, the Defendant did not take the above money by deceiving the Justice under the condition that the Defendant was not delegated by the victim as described in this part of the facts charged.
In addition, there is no fact that the Defendant has threatened the victim with “taking a return of the money paid to J.” As to the Defendant’s “the act of intimidation around October 16, 2013,” the Defendant would transfer the shares owned by the victim to the name of the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged.