beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the defendant was put in a misunderstanding of facts as to the part of the assault, the defendant did not have the intention of assaulting the victim merely because the mere fact that he was placed in the reception box was consistent with the victim's direction.
B. The Defendant requested the Defendant to not duplicate his resident registration certificate with a large voice, such as misconception of facts as to the obstruction of business affairs and misapprehension of legal principles, and the Defendant merely resisted E, a vice head, to the first time, and did not have ever expressed a desire or used other tangible power. Therefore, the Defendant did not have an intention to interfere with business, and the above acts by the Defendant do not constitute “def
C. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the part of the assault, i.e., the Defendant’s intentional act of assaulting, i.e., when considering the visual CCTV images that were recorded at the time of the instant case, the victim D pointed out that the Defendant was wrong in preparing the front tag, and immediately pointed out that the face of the victim was verified by leaving the front tag as the left hand, and ② the victim made a statement specifically and consistent with the fact of the damage.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts as to obstruction of business and misapprehension of legal principles, i.e., (e., CCTV images, the Defendant’s explanation of the Defendant, who first renders a sound to D and suffered in the fluence E, cannot be seen as having given a fluence to the Defendant, and rather, the Defendant’s fluence over 15 minutes.