beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder of the violation violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the attempted attempt to commit a crime, there is no fact that the Defendant made intimidation identical to the facts charged.
2) As to the damage of property, there is no intention to damage property to the defendant.
B. The punishment of the lower court (excluding the crime of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: 2 years of imprisonment, and the crime of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: 600,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the following circumstances, which can be revealed by the evidence of attempted crimes, i.e., ① the victim consistently stated in the facts charged that “the victim reported the internal company” to the victim as stated in the facts charged.
was stated, and at the time of committing the instant crime, at the main point operated by the victim
J appears in the court of the court below that the defendant made such remarks.
(2) In light of the fact that the victim appears to have no particular reason to make a false statement against the defendant, the fact that the defendant threatened the victim, such as the statement in the facts charged, can be recognized.
This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence on the part of the damage to property, namely, a police officer at the present site observed by a criminal investigation agency that the Defendant had observed the wires of the wind-line signboards in front of the victim’s main point, and subsequently submitted a written statement to the effect that the Defendant said that “the Defendant would have caused the victim to go to B”, the police officer may recognize the fact that the Defendant intentionally committed an act identical to the facts charged for the destruction of the above wind-line signboards.
We do not accept this part of the defendant's assertion.
B. There is a record that the defendant committed the same kind of crime with regard to the illegal argument of sentencing.