폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is only the victim at the time of the instant case, and there is no fact that the victim was faced with head on the vehicle parked.
2. Determination
A. According to each of the evidence stated in the previous records and the summary of the following evidence before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months from the Cheongju District Court Jeju Branch on June 19, 2015 to a crime of violating the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (voluntary Indecent Act) against the Defendant’s Sexual Abuse of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Jeju District Court’s Sexual Abuse on June 27, 201
However, the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and the crime of this case committed against the defendant, which became final and conclusive, constitutes concurrent crimes by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and where the punishment of this case is determined pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, a sentence should be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where the defendant was adjudicated concurrently with the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.
B. Despite the above ex officio grounds for reversal as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
1) Unless there are exceptional cases where maintaining the first deliberation decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is deemed to be remarkably unfair, the appellate court shall not arbitrarily reverse the first deliberation decision on the ground that the first deliberation decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s decision (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). 2) The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking account of the detailed circumstances in its reasoning.