폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Article 1 of the judgment below) 1) The Defendant tried to threaten the victim with a dangerous weapon, which is a deadly weapon, and had no intention to inflict an injury on the victim at the same time.
In the process of Q Q’s speaking the Defendant, the victim’s face was paid, and it is difficult to deem that the victim’s wife was extremely minor and injured.
2) Even if the intention of inflicting an injury on the Defendant is recognized, the statutory provisions applicable to the Defendant and the name of the crime should be changed to Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act and special injury.
B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for amendment to a bill of amendment with the content of "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)" in the name of the defendant as "special injury" and "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" in the applicable law as "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act" in the name of the crime against the defendant. This court permitted the above, thereby changing the subject matter of the judgment as to Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act into the subject matter of the judgment of the court below, and the court below has a relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
Since a single sentence was sentenced, the entire judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
However, there is reason to reverse ex officio as above.
Even if the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, it is examined.
B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, namely, ① the Defendant made a confession from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court as to the part of the facts charged in the instant case, and the motive or circumstance leading up to the confession.