beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
Defendant
B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B’s punishment (one million won of fine) is too heavy.
B. The judgment of the court below which rejected the victim B’s statement that the prosecutor (the defendant C) sustained injury from the defendant C and acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Defendant B and Co-Defendant A, who are in charge of security service for H with the main operator of the main point of judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing regarding Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing, committed this case in the course of jointly suppressing the victim C, the victim C’s injury does not appear to be serious, the Defendant’s mistake is in depth, and the equity in sentencing with the case of judgment at the same time with the final judgment of the court below cannot be considered. In full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and arguments, including equity in sentencing with Co-Defendant A, Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, sentencing guidelines, etc., the court below’s punishment against Defendant B is unreasonable.
I would like to say.
Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is justified.
B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant C of this part of the facts charged against the Defendant C on the ground that there is insufficient proof as stated in its reasoning.
Examining the judgment of the court below closely by comparison with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just.
In particular, it is insufficient to recognize that the victim B’s police officer’s statement to the effect that “the defendant sustained injury in the course of suppressing the defendant C” and some of the statements in the court below are caused by the defendant C’s price act, and otherwise, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that there was no reasonable doubt.