beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) In fact, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant assaulted a vehicle, which is a dangerous object at the time of the instant case, by exercising force against many unspecified persons at the assembly site including the victim.
Even if the victim was at the point of the collision at the time of the instant case
Even if the defendant's act constitutes a mistake in a specific fact, the defendant's act should be viewed as an assaulting the victim.
In addition, the defendant could have sufficiently predicted that the result of the victim's death may arise due to his own collision.
Therefore, the lower court was erroneous to have acquitted the Defendant of the death of special assault among the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too uneasible.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.
2. The prosecutor amended the indictment at the time of the trial of the party, which led to the occurrence of a special assault that the court below acquitted, as the primary charge; the name of the crime is "Death or Injury caused by negligence"; Article 267 of the Criminal Act is "Article 267 of the Criminal Act"; and Article 267 of the Criminal Act is "Article 267 of the Criminal Act" as stated in Paragraph 1 of the same Article; and Article 3 (b) above, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that
3. Determination
A. (1) The defendant, at the time and place specified in Paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, was a large number of police officers and participants in the police bus, the police bus, and the police noise management vehicle as stated in the judgment of the court below, despite the fact that there were several police officers and participants around the police bus, the police bus, and the police noise management vehicle as stated in Paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant is driving the above police bus, which is a dangerous object, for about 50 times.