Defendant

Defendant

Lee Sung-sung (Court of Prosecution) and Kim Sung-hoon (Court of Justice)

Attorney Jeon Jong-ho (Korean)

Daegu District Court Decision 201 Godan6578, 2011 Godan6196 (Consolidated) Decided August 23, 2012

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

[2] In relation to the part of the 2011 Highest 6578] portion, the Defendant did not have any fact that the Defendant either taken the victim Nonindicted Party 1 as a main illness or taken several times, and did not assault the victim Nonindicted Party 2, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The two-year imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

The victim non-indicted 2 made a very concrete and detailed statement about the details of damage (the victim non-indicted 1's damaged part and the victim non-indicted 2's damaged part) caused by the Defendant's assault (the victim non-indicted 1's damaged part and the victim's damaged part) that could not be known without the victim's direct experience or witness at an investigative agency, and the explanation of the situation is reasonable. In addition, the victim non-indicted 2 made a statement in the police on the following day of the crime by reporting the damaged part to the police officer immediately after the crime in this case. Considering such circumstances and the contents of the

Therefore, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below including the above statements by the victim non-indicted 2, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the facts concealed by assaulting the victim non-indicted 1, causing the victim non-indicted 2 to assault the victim, and making the victim non-indicted 2 unable to find at the same time by removing one ear from the victim non-indicted 2. The defendant's statement contrary thereto is likely to recognize credibility because its contents are changed from the police to the prosecution, the court below, and the court below. The statement by the witness non-indicted 3 does not interfere with the recognition of the above criminal facts, and there is no other evidence to reverse it, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

The Defendant has a history of criminal punishment more than 40 times, and is punished for the same crime as this case, 42 times. Considering that the Defendant’s assault and assault does not seem to be easy, the victim’s sexual assault and that there was no agreement with the victims or no recovery from damage, etc. up to the trial. In particular, the victim Nonindicted 2 expressed fear that he would be subject to retaliation from the Defendant at the prosecutor’s office. Examining all the circumstances above, examining the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant two years of imprisonment is too unreasonable, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices (However, since it is clear that the term “a prison term” in Article 4 of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the decision of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of hiding property, it is corrected to correct it ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1)

Justices Kim Tae-cheon (Presiding Justice)