beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Reasons for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (non-violationd part) demanded compensation for damages that the Defendant did not actually occur to the victim, and the degree of such demand also exceeds the permissible level and scope under the social norms, and thus the Defendant’s act constitutes a attack.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Judgment 1 on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) The summary of this part of the facts charged was that the Defendant, around 00:40 on May 13, 2016, at the front side of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, driven the Plaintiff N(35 years of age) with the Plaintiff’s rash in a drinking state, and the Defendant reported 112 after the Defendant took a part of the said vehicle, and reported 112 as if the drinking traffic accident occurred.
In the process of police investigation, the defendant knew that the injured person was in a state without a license as well as drinking driving, and did not pay money to him/her, but did not pay money to him/her, so he/she would be punished for severe criminal punishment.
Accordingly, from May 13, 2016 to 02:20 on May 13, 2016, the Defendant may be bound by the victim’s phone and text message “under the influence of alcohol without a license.”
It would be said that there has been no risk of human injury at the prime place of the agreement.
If the agreement is not paid, the fact of operating the company is known to the new company when the license is revoked.
around 13:46 on May 13, 2016, by intimidation, received KRW 1 million from the G bank account in the name of the Defendant, and received KRW 3.8 million from around nine times every time until May 20, 2016, including the transfer of KRW 1 million to the G bank account in the name of the Defendant, and received KRW 3.8 million from that time until May 20, 2016.
2) On the judgment of the court below, the court below held that this part of the facts charged is the defendant.