beta
Text
The judgment below
The acquitted portion of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) is not guilty.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that acquitted the victim of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and the charge of damage to special property is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, in light of the following facts: (a) the defendant misunderstanding of the facts was able to recognize the fact that he intentionally shocked the victim's vehicle; (b) he was able to obtain the victim's back caber twice after the 10m back; and (c) he was able to receive the victim's back caber in the future after the 10m back; and (d) the defendant was specifically memoryed and stated a part of the situation at the time; and (e) he appears to have not been under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he would not receive the victim's cab due to negligence, such as the assertion.
B. The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio are examined ex officio prior to the judgment.
In the trial of the court of first instance, the prosecutor applied the name of the crime concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) which is part of the facts charged concerning the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below as "special injury", and the applicable provision of the law to "Article 3 (1), Article 2 (1) 3, and Article 257 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" changed the term "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" to "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act". Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
However, regardless of the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's mistake and improper argument for sentencing are still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 19:50 on May 30, 2015, the Defendant is leading to a credit cooperative located in the Dong-dong of Kim Jong-si.