beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) 2015 Godan12, 2015 Godan12, as stated in the facts constituting a crime of 2015 Godan12 as indicated in the lower judgment, did not have taken one time a part of the victim D’s left side side, and the injury suffered by the said victim was merely a part of the U.S. disease, thereby protruding away.
B) The Defendant, as stated in the lower judgment’s 2015Kadan163 criminal facts No. 2015Kadan163 of the lower judgment, did not have taken advantage of the victim H’s face, who is the mother of the Defendant, with his/her hand floor, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (2) of the 2015 Godan163 of the lower judgment. 2) The
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. On the premise that the judgment of the court below as to the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio prior to the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor examined the following facts: (a) on the premise that the facts charged of habitual ascendant intimidation and the facts charged in each of the instant cases were committed with the same points of habitual violence as those of the same facts charged; and (b) on the premise that the facts charged in each of the instant cases were committed with the same points of habitual ascendant violence, the prosecutor included Article 2(1)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(2), 260(2), 35, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act, the prosecutor included Article 38 of the Criminal Act as "the crime including Article 2(1)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(2), Article 260(2)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 38 of the same Act as the prosecutor."
A request for amendments to Bill of Indictment was made to change the criminal facts of habitual violence from the substantive concurrent crimes to the comprehensive crimes of habitual violence, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.
And the above crimes against the defendant.