폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Despite the fact that the defendant committed a crime in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.) with two foreigners, the court below convicted him of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, suspension of execution two years, community service, and 160 hours, which the court below sentenced to the defendant, is too unreasonable.
2. "At least two persons under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" as the requirement that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship among them. In addition, there is a case where several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity at the same place and used it to commit the crime.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the defendant was paid 10,000 won for each of the above foreigners after the commission of the crime, as alleged by the defendant, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the health stand in this case; and (b) the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below; (c) the defendant could have been recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below; (d) the defendant could help the defendant who damaged the victim's property at the time of the crime; (b) the defendant would have been paying the consideration to the foreigner; and (c) the defendant paid the above foreigners in return for each of the above foreigners after the commission of the crime. Even though the defendant did not go to the place where the crime was committed, the fact that the defendant committed the crime jointly with the above foreigners can be sufficiently recognized.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. The argument on unfair sentencing.