beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged despite the fact that the defendant did not assault the victim in relation to the injury of June 4, 2013 in the judgment of the court below, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victim and witness who appeared as a witness in the court of the court below and testified conforming to this part of the facts charged are consistent and credibility; ② the victim reported damage on the day of the crime; ② the victim submitted a written diagnosis of injury due to the act of cutting back cages at the left side of the same part, which is the same as the part that complained of suffering in the police statement, it can be sufficiently recognized this part of the charges that the defendant suffered injury to the above victim, such as Q Q, and cage clor for approximately four weeks of medical treatment. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be said to have erred by misapprehending the facts pointed out by the defendant,
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. Although there are favorable circumstances, such as the confession and reflection of all the remaining crimes except the injury inflicted on June 4, 2013, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime (two times suspended sentence of imprisonment, two times sentenced to imprisonment, and 16 times). On the other hand, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime; on the part of June 4, 2013, the Defendant criticizes the victim that the victim is making a false statement without asking a letter to the victim; on the other hand, the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, and the instant case.