beta
Text
Defendant
All A’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) In fact, the Defendant did not have any 3 to 4 times the head of the Victim H, and the Defendant does not have any dynamics with a lifelong low-level test.
The testimony “assumed” refers to the past of the previous year except for the facts charged in the instant case.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of facts, the lower court did not recognize the admissibility of the transcript submitted by the victim G on the ground that there was no original file. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of evidence of the copy of the recording file
The lower court, as such, did not recognize the admissibility of evidence of the recording on the record submitted by G, and, at around 20:30 on March 24, 2012, the lower court deemed that Defendant A her talked with her fingers while talking with his wife on March 24, 2012.
There is an error of misconception of the fact that Defendant B testified to the effect that he did not have a talked, and that Defendant B testified to the effect that he was aware that he had a talked about his fingers on March 24, 2012, Defendant B had not been aware that he had a talked about his fingers.
2) Improper sentencing (for Defendant A), the sentence imposed by the lower court against Defendant A is too unfasible.
2. Determination
A. According to the Defendant’s partial statement in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the witness H, G’s legal statement, and the entries in the examination protocol of witness examination, etc., the Defendant left the victim H once a week, and continued to 3 to 4 times on March 24, 2012, such as the instant charges, and the Defendant assaulted the victim H and G, who is the Defendant’s birth, as a witness, on December 18, 2012, and without any time limit, there was no fright to the Defendant’s lifelong test.
“.....”