beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the crime No. 1 of the lower judgment, the Defendant did not take a bath to E at the time, and the Defendant took a bath.
Even though this part of the facts charged was acquitted, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and finding the guilty.
B. As to the crime No. 2 of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, even though the Defendant did not assault E by assaulting.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the witness E of the court below, consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and consistently stated that the Defendant took a bath to E while the Defendant heard F as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the court below, and stated to the effect that he committed an assault as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime; ② the witness F of the court below stated in the court of the court below that the Defendant took a bath to E as stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts of the court below; ③ the CCTV image taken at each site was filled by the Defendant on the date stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts of the court below at the time of the court below’s judgment, and the Defendant moved the Defendant to E several times at each site, and on the other, it appears that the noise was not occurred at the time of the dispute, such as the Defendant’s leaving his own vehicle before the three-way and waiting for another vehicle during the dispute.
In full view of the fact that F was able to sufficiently hear the resistance or desire of the Defendant, and (4) In addition, in the above CCTV images, the facts charged in the instant case are fully satisfied, taking account of the following: (a) the fact that the Defendant was sealed in his hand at the time indicated in paragraph (2) of the lower judgment’s criminal facts and that the Defendant’s daily Ha, who followed the Defendant, was the Defendant.