beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.07.10 2014노186

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendants did not inflict an injury on the victims, or did not destroy a vehicle owned by the victims’ M, and some of the assault facts are different. Even if the Defendants committed certain acts, such acts constitute self-defense to defend themselves from the victims’ assault. 2) Punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: KRW 1 million, and KRW 300,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendants’ instant act by misapprehending the legal principles of Defendant C, D, and E1 (Justifiable Act) constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, since the Defendants merely engaged in physical contact with the victims, who are the births, and thus, constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules. 2) The sentence (Defendant C, D, and E) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the statements by the victims of the determination of misunderstanding of facts regarding Defendant A and B, the images of each damaged photograph, each injury diagnosis report, and other various circumstances shown in the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendants inflicted injury on the victims as stated in the facts constituting a crime and damaged an automobile. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the record of the judgment on the assertion of self-defense by Defendant A and B, namely, the Defendants appears to have caused physical fighting while engaging in a dispute with each other in relation to the support issue of the mother-child, as a satisf as an intermediary, and there is no circumstance to deem either of the Defendants to have committed unilaterally assaulted by the other, and in light of the developments and degree of assault and injury, etc., the Defendants appear to have inflicted an injury on the other.