폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months; and
3. A seizure.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty is erroneous as follows.
A) On December 22, 2016, the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim I with regard to the facts constituting the crime No. 2-A of the lower judgment as indicated in the lower judgment.
B) With regard to the charge No. 2-B of the crime in the judgment below, the defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim I due to the camping-gu room.
C) Criminal facts No. 2-D. as stated in the judgment below.
With respect to intimidation and assault during the resistance, the defendant has no record of intimidation or assaulting the victim L.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. With regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury), among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant by the Prosecutor, the admissibility of each statement made by the police and the prosecutor about R is recognized in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
In addition, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the above statement protocol, the above facts charged against the defendant is fully convicted.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to admissibility of evidence and misconception of facts.
2. Determination
A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, following the summary of the evidence, following the Defendant’s assertion and judgment.
Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of law as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
subsection (b) of this section.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.
(b) mistake the facts of the prosecutor; and