beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of acquittal shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged of this case, abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights are acquitted.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 1: (a) the remainder of the F, who was found to have a sexually sexually sexually sexually impaired by F and lost prudent force; (b) the sex relationship between the Defendant and F, had no business relationship or quid pro quo; and (c) the Defendant did not have any intent to accept a bribe, despite the absence of intention to accept a bribe, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the acceptance of a bribe among the facts charged in the instant case due to misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles; (b) the sentence (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unfair
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant abused his official authority and allowed FF to enter the Gu's office No. 1, not the prosecutor's office, and did not perform his duty.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio decision defendant and the prosecutor, the prosecutor examined the facts charged of abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights among the facts charged in the instant case, and the prosecutor applied for amendments to the bill of amendment to the effect that “The defendant, who is a public official, abused his official authority and allowed F to enter F into the exit once the Gu’s station, which is not the prosecutor’s office, and let him go into the Defendant’s vehicle, etc., and let F go into the exit once the Gu’s station, which is not the inspector’s office,” “The defendant, who is a public official, applied for amendments to the bill of amendment to the effect that “The defendant, by abusing his official authority, had F go into the exit once the Gu’s station, which is not the inspector’
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the above reasons for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are still meaningful.