beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of the facts against the Defendant, on February 22, 2016, was unaware of the fact that the coffee received from D at the time of the conclusion of the coffee, and thus, it is not possible to recognize the intention of the philophone medication, and the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.
B. The defendant asserts that the defendant's imprisonment (two months of imprisonment and two hundred thousand won of collection) of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.
2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's intention on the administration of phiphones can be fully recognized, considering the following circumstances, in light of the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
① Although it was immediately possible to know that the coffee containing satise is abnormal, the Defendant d also made a statement to the same effect (the witness D also made a statement to the same effect), and the Defendant dume at the time wats not less than half the body of satis.
In particular, since the defendant had experience in shotphones in the past and used the same medication method in relation to Paragraph 1 of the facts charged in this case, it seems that the defendant had been well aware of the shotphones containing the same medication method.
[Defendant is subject to punishment for committing a crime that administers a scopon with a scopon (see, e.g., Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch Branch Decision 2015Kadan1008). ② The Defendant alleged that D puts a scopon with the intent of having a sexual intercourse with himself/herself, but D did not return to D even after he/she continued to have a scopon with the Defendant, since D had no intention to have a sexual intercourse with D, it is difficult to view that D had an intention to have a scopon with the Defendant, and there is no other reason to put D into a scopon phone in a coffee.
(3)