폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.
Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the sentence imposed by the lower court (one-year suspended sentence of imprisonment, confiscation).
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.
In the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied the law to change the name of the crime of this case to "a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)", and the applicable law to "Article 3 (1), Article 2 (1) 3, and Article 260 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" and "Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" respectively, and applied for amendments to the indictment to "Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act". Since the court permitted the amendment, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.
3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows, without examining the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, the summary of the evidence is cited.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Article 261 of the Criminal Act, Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;
1. Penalty fine of 2,00,000 won to be suspended;
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence;
1. The relevant provision was deleted due to the amendment of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) that was originally applied to the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act. Accordingly, the defendant was punished as a special assault under the Criminal Act more minor crimes through the amendment of the Act, the crime of this case appears to have been committed by contingency, the defendant reflects the wrongness of the defendant, and the victim.