beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The argument on mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to special intimidation on the ground of appeal (Article 3 of the facts of the judgment of the court below) that the defendant made a statement to the effect that "the defendant will pay in full as much as he had received," is not a fact, but it is not memory as to whether he did not display a golf bond, and he had a golf bond at the time.
Although there is a fact that the defendant expressed on the part of intimidation (criminal facts in the judgment of the court below No. 4), it was the process that the defendant expressed the victim M's desire to take the victim's bath first, and that it was in the process of resisting the victim's alley.
The defendant's act is merely an act to defend against the harm of his body, and it is difficult to view it as a threat to the victim M. Even if it is recognized as a threat, it constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.
The sentencing (10 months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the argument of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the grounds for appeal (Article 3 of the facts stated in the lower judgment), the Defendant cited golf loans to the restaurant of the victim K as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, and stated that “the Defendant would pay a certain amount of money to the victim K as much as he/she has flicked and flicked,” and stated that “the Defendant would pay a certain amount of money to the victim K as flick and flicked,” and the Defendant did not actually display golf loans.
This does not affect the establishment of a special intimidation.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (Article 4 of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment), the Defendant who asked the victim M to see why the Defendant was dissatisfying a failure at the place specified in paragraph 4 of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment.