beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the charge of special injury among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim “ without any special reason,” but when the Defendant was at the time of mutual dispute while the victim was waiting the Defendant first.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the phrase “when a mistake of fact has affected the judgment,” which is one of the reasons for appeal under Article 361-5 subparag. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to the case where a mistake of fact influenced the order of the judgment, and the case where a direct or indirect impact was influenced on the constituent element evaluation of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do1665, Sept. 20, 196). This part of the assertion is nothing more than the argument about the facts premised on sentencing as to the motive of the crime, and as seen below, the ground for appeal affected the sentencing.
Therefore, it cannot be seen that the judgment order or the constituent evaluation of the crime of this case directly or indirectly affects the constituent evaluation of the crime of this case. Thus, the defendant's misconception of facts is without merit.
B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the defendant most recognized the crime of this case and took an attitude against each of the crime of this case, the victims of each of the crime of this case did not want to be punished against the defendant by receiving the amount obtained by deceit, and the defendant is a disabled person of Grade 3 with intellectual disability. However, even if the special injury crime of this case was committed in dispute with the victim as alleged by the defendant, the crime is not good in light of the circumstance of the crime of this case, the form of the act, the degree and degree of injury, etc., and even if the defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment on August 9, 2010, it is the same as the repeated crime period.