beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.09.12 2013노1630

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion of the original trial and misunderstanding of legal principles) made a statement to the effect that the defendant made a confession in the police, and the defendant made a statement to the effect that there was no credibility on the grounds that the defendant's right to cross-examination was not guaranteed since the defendant gave consent to the victim's statement. In light of the above, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal nature of evidence

2. Around December 8, 2011, the summary of the charge charged by the lower court (a collective assault (a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act) was assaulted by the victim D and the victim D in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, a dangerous object by finding the house of 26 years old and live together with Aluminium sinium gate, a dangerous object by finding the house of 0:10 on December 8, 201.

3. As to the above facts charged, the court below held that the defendant's statement as to the victim D is only the fact that "the defendant saw less than the back of the victim's interest at two times with Aluminium Alumin, damaged the entrance glass during that process, and there is no special wound or any other relation due to the above assault." The victim did not return to China after the case, and the above statement was not exercised at all. The defendant's right to cross-examine, and at the time, the defendant brought an open door to his own automobile and brought an open door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant's above evidence is insufficient.