상해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
The defendant does not pay the above fine.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Fact misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not have to take the victim’s face by drinking.
2) The Defendant was suffering from mental illness, such as a flat impulse disorder, bipolartic disorder, etc., but was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.
3) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
According to the records of this case, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two months on August 11, 2016 to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury in the Sugsan Support of Sugwon, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 19, 2016, on November 22, 2016, and on July 7, 2016, upon being sentenced to two months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) and a violation of the self-public duties performed on July 21, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 21, 2017.
Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that punishment for the instant crime shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act as a concurrent offense relationship after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, for the crime of injury, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault), interference with the performance of official duties, and the instant crime.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.
However, although there are reasons for reversal of authority above, the defendant's assertion of mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and loss of mind and body is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
3. The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.
(1) The victim shall be deemed to have taken part of his/her face in an investigative agency when he/she takes part of his/her own face one time.
(2) The victim submitted to the original court a photograph of damage (see, e.g., evidence record 25) taken at the site of this case.