beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, at the time of misunderstanding of facts, was led by the above victim to the outside of the office immediately after being requested by the victim to leave. Therefore, the Defendant did not refuse to leave the office.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. ① The statements made by the victim's investigative agency, which correspond to the facts charged in this case, are considerably specific and highly reliable in relation to the background of the crime, the process of the crime, etc.; ② The defendant, at the time, testified in the investigative agency that "at the time, the victim and the Si reserve forces the victim to leave the office, but did not "at the time, the victim responded to the situation", and the victim tried to bring his own arms and clothes into the office, but the victim forced to go out of the office, but attempted not to lead." At the time of the crime in this case, the defendant was led to confession at the time of the crime in this case at the court of the court below; ③ The defendant was dispatched to the police officer upon receipt of the report, and even at the time, the defendant was found to have refused to leave the office of the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.
B. There is no history of criminal punishment for the same offense of determining the unfair argument of sentencing, and there are favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the victimized person was injured by the defendant in the course of forcing the victimized person to leave the office, but the defendant on the other hand.