beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and a fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) According to the statement in the police investigation process of the victim's misunderstanding of facts (as to each of the facts charged in this case), even if the defendant was found to have received a total of 600,000 won by threatening the victim, the court below found the defendant not guilty of each of the facts charged in this part of this case, which erred in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The above sentence sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing is too unjustifiable and unfair.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of the facts charged in this part is that the Defendant was aware of the visit to the “sing room operated by the Victim N (Nam, 59 years of age)” as a customer.
1) On June 17, 2019, at a place where a location is unknown, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim by telephone to the effect that “the victim would report illegal business activities, such as drinking alcohol, to the police at a singing room in U U.S. without giving money; (b) received 300,000 won from the victim drinking fright to the Nong Bank account (V) in the name of the Defendant; (c) the Defendant threatened the victim at a place where the location cannot be known at around 18:51 on July 11, 2019; and (d) received 10,000 won from the victim drinking fright to the said Nong Bank account from the victim to the said Nong Bank account.”
3. On September 16, 2019, at a place where a location is unknown, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim by telephone at a place where the location is unknown; (b) received 200,000 won from a drinking victim, who was frighten, to the said Nonghyup Bank account; and (c) took it over.
B. The lower court’s judgment, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, does not seem to have any reasonable doubt as to each of the facts charged by the prosecutor alone.