폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant only told the victim F and A fighting; and (b) during that process, F has pushed the F’s shoulder in order to capture the Defendant’s left arms by cutting off the Defendant’s arm’s length, and there is no fact that F’s breater is dead, such as the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.
2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the statements of H in the trial of the party, the F has a fact that he/she meets her buck from the Defendant.
I and J have observed the above facts.
While L, G, and H stated, L, G, and H only told the defendant to fight, but they did not witness the fact that the F was at the time of her buck.
statement is made.
In light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance was clearly erroneous.
Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). Examining the above legal principles in light of the above legal principles, the F’s statement is likely to have been made without properly grasping the situation under the influence of alcohol by the F when it was so probable that the F did not believe the statement as is.
I seem to appear.
On the other hand, H's statement at the trial of the party also at the investigation report (suspect F.