beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Intimidation, such as a group, deadly weapon, etc.) shall be reversed.
(e).
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each statement made by the defendant, victim E, and witness I in an investigative agency is more reliable than the statement made by the court below, and considering the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the defendant cited the soldiers and threatened E.
Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant cannot be punished for a crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had threatened the victim by carrying a dangerous weapon, which is an object, and only the crime of intimidation under the Criminal Act may be established.
A judgment that dismissed the prosecution of this case was rendered.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
In the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied for amendment of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) to "special intimidation" under Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act as "Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" under the applicable law as "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act". Of the facts charged, the prosecutor applied for amendment of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) to "1. Special Intimidation" under Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act as "1." Since this Court changed to its judgment by permitting it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
B. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of fact-finding 1) The prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of fact-finding despite the grounds for reversal of authority as above is still subject to the judgment of this court.
2) The court below held that the witness E refers to the witness E’s “I Y, I Y, I am, and I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am.”