beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the subject of posting a banner of each of the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts isO, the Defendant did not have any fact of posting a banner.
B. Legal principles, even if the Defendant is the co-owner who posted the banner under paragraph (1) of the facts charged, the illegality is dismissed by Article 310 of the Criminal Act, since it is for the public interest.
C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts admitted by the lower court as to the mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the trial court, the Defendant posted each banner under paragraph (1) of the facts charged, knowing that the content of each banner under paragraphs (1) was false, and the facts leading up to each banner under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the facts charged are recognized.
1) At the investigative agency and the court of original instance, F consistently interviewed with R, S and S in connection with the N’s embezzlement case, and confirmed that the investigation was conducted at the time. There was no fact that executive officers were unaware of the fact at the time of a meeting of executive officers with expertise and qualities. The Defendant stated that “F did not have an interview with the content that is subject to criticism as a whole by DF.” In light of F’s investigative agency and the court of original instance, it is difficult to see that F made a false statement while being subject to the punishment of the above evidence in light of F’s attitude of statement at the investigative agency and the court of original instance, etc., the F’s statement is credibility. 2) The court of original instance stated that “F was not subject to the self-inspection at the time of an interview,” and that F was not in conformity with F’s statement that its officer’s quality was dissatisfyed at the time of the meeting.”
3 P is referred to in the court below's decision in 2013.