폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. At around 02:20 on April 8, 2014, the Defendant and C of the instant facts charged: (a) on the ground that the Defendant was knife with D and the victim E (year 26) on the ground that the Defendant was knife the Plaintiff’s knife with D and C; (b) on the other hand, the Defendant was pushed the victim’s knife; (c) on the other hand, the Defendant was knifeing the victim’s knife; (d) on the other hand, knife the face of the Victim F (year 26) who is the victim’s knife of the victim’s E with his knife at one time.
As a result, the defendant and C jointly agreed with the victim E on the part of a baby so that the number of days of treatment can not be known to the victim E, and the victim F on the part of the internal part where the number of days of treatment cannot be known to the victim F.
2. The witness E and F stated in this Court that, at the time of this Court, the Defendant and D and the victim E were physically fighting one time, and that C appeared after the body fighting was set up, and C was at the time of the victim E and F.
In addition, the witness F, D, and C stated in this court that, as above, C does not have any part of the defendant's participation in the victim E and F.
In full view of the above statements, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim E and F in collaboration with C at the time, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the victim E and F suffered an injury due to the defendant's act.
Thus, the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and only violence against the act of harming the victim E at the time can be established.
The crime of violence shall not be prosecuted against the will expressed by the victim under Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act as an offense falling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act.
According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the victim E stated that the investigative agency did not want to punish the defendant (Evidence Record No. 54).