폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
The judgment below
Part on Defendant S and T shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
S and T each fine of KRW 10,000,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor (unfairness) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence in August, respectively, and one year of imprisonment in case of Defendant D) is too uneased and unfair.
B. Defendant T1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are caused by acts of D and S, and the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim’s Z because of either public or joint conspiracy with D or S, and even after the Z was inflicted an assault against AC, this is only a single crime committed by the Defendant, but not a assault with D or S. The lower court’s conviction of each of the facts charged was erroneous or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable.
C. The sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, because the sentence imposed by Defendant S or D (dubly unfair) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding Defendant T’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts. “When two or more persons jointly commit a crime under paragraph (1)” under Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that there exist the so-called co-offender relationship between them. It is required that several persons are aware of another person’s crime in the same opportunity at the same place and commit the crime using the same (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000). In addition, conspiracy in a co-offender relationship in which two or more persons conspired to commit a crime and process jointly, is not required under the law, and it is sufficient that there is an implied communication of the co-offender who wishes to commit the crime directly or indirectly between them, and it is sufficient that there is an implied communication of the intention to commit the crime, and even if not directly
In addition, the joint execution of a crime by conspiracy is not based on the premise that all accomplices realize the constituent elements of the crime on their own.