beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors or misapprehension of legal principles) withdrawn the allegation of unreasonable sentencing among the grounds for appeal on the first trial date.
There was no intention to commit each of the crimes in this case.
B. Each of the instant crimes committed with a view to preventing cooperation in illegal nanotechnology business and illegal game room business, and is a justifiable act that does not go against social norms.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, according to the witness D, J, H, L, and M’s respective legal statements, each of the facts charged of this case can be recognized, and the defendant’s intent related to each of the above crimes is recognized, and even if the defendant had motive for committing the crime as alleged in the grounds of appeal, this does not constitute a circumstance to deny such criminal intent.
B. In addition, each of the crimes of this case constitutes a justifiable act, and the "act that does not violate the social rules" as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or social ethics or social norms. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as the motive or justification of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the legal interest and the legal interest in the infringement law, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act, it shall be deemed a justifiable act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4732, Aug. 20, 2004). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of each of the crimes of this case, and the reasonable means or method of the act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that can be accepted by social norms.
C. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.