beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not threaten the victims, who are children, and did not inflict any injury on the victims. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment for six months and one year of suspended execution) of the court below is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the Defendant and the victim C (the age of 9 at that time) and D (the age of 8 at that time) are mother-child relationship.
1) A special intimidation: (a) around 18:0 on July 2012, 201, the Defendant: (b) informed the victims of F apartment 102, 102, 102, and 102 of the Defendant’s house located in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; (c) without any justifiable reason, the Defendant provided that “the victims shall die if they die, even if they move out of the house, do so; (d) the victims suffered losses; (e) the victims suffered excessive progress under the items of the victim D; and (e) the victims were exposed to excessive progress under the items of the victim D; and (e) the victims threatened each victims by carrying dangerous articles. (b) At the victim’s house around 01:0 on October 10, 201, the victims of the instant accident, “at the victim’s house, at the victim’s house, she was able to take care of the number of days during which they were born in Paris.”
B. The lower court found the victims guilty of the instant charges in accordance with each of the evidence indicated in the lower court’s judgment, including the statements in the court below.
C. In light of the spirit of the substantial direct cross-examination doctrine adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the relevant legal doctrine 1 related to the judgment of the party.