beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder of each special injury sentenced to innocence, except the injury, the injury, and the injury caused by violence.
Reasons
1. The scope of the trial court’s judgment is limited to the guilty portion of the judgment below, since the court below acquitted each of the charges of this case, and acquitted each of the charges of this case, and since the prosecutor did not appeal this part, and the above acquittal portion became final and conclusive as the prosecutor did not appeal this part.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts (Assault and special intimidation dated October 23, 2016) does not have any fact that the Defendant only sealed the victim on the day of the instant case, but did not have any fact at the time of heringinging the victim, and there is no fact that the Defendant saw him as her to her or her to be her obscing or committing any behavior.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. The victim B was present as a witness in the court of the court below to the effect that “The Defendant was at her time on the ground that he or she applied to her or she applied to her her scam on the day of the instant case to another foreign workers,” and that “the victim B
It is true that the contents of the victim's statement are not certain, or that there are some parts of the first statement in the investigation stage are different from the testimony of the court below.
However, considering the fact that the main part of the victim’s statement is relatively clear and consistent to the facts charged up to the court below’s trial, and that the victim’s ability to express his/her own opinion is partly insufficient, the credibility of the victim’s statement cannot be easily rejected.
The victim also recognized that “the victim was assaulted by the Defendant on the day of the instant case, setting up against it, and flapsing the Defendant’s flaps and threatening the Defendant,” and was punished accordingly. However, the victim was punished on December 21, 2017 by taking into account the circumstances of contingent defense against the Defendant’s violence.