beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts (1) there is no fact between the defendant and the relevant place at the time of each crime in this part.
(2) As to the damage of property, the Defendant had resided in the vinyl of this case and managed and owned the headquarters of this case. Thus, even if it was damaged, it does not constitute the crime of causing property damage. Since the Defendant, at the time, went beyond his father and the vision and damaged the headquarters, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to damage property.
B. The sentence of the lower court on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. Regarding interference with each business, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim C (a) made a statement that accords with this part of the facts charged at the time when the case occurred and the situation at the time when the case occurred in the investigation agency and the court of original trial, and there is no special circumstance that the above victim made a false statement in order to mislead the defendant. Thus, the victim F (B) made a statement that accords with this part of the facts charged at the investigation agency and the court of original trial, and ② the victim F (B) also made a statement that conforms to this part of the facts charged at the time when the case occurred and the situation at the time when the case occurred in the investigation agency and the court of original trial, and even according to the statement in the 112 Report Processing Division, the victim F (B) also made a statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged at the time when the police officer was reported to the police, and it can confirm the fact that the police officer who was dispatched at the time of this case had returned to the defendant (Article 35(35) and paragraph(1) of this case).