폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the circumstances that four co-defendants of the court below, including the defendant, drink together at the time and place indicated in the facts charged of the appeal, and even after fighting, two persons even after fighting, have left the scene, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that the court below acquitted the defendant, even if the defendant was found to have inflicted bodily injury on the victim jointly with co-defendants of the court below.
2. Determination
A. A. Around July 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 21:40 on July 18, 2015, the summary of the facts charged charged: (b) around the HF house located in Ulsan-gun G, Ulsan-gun, and (c) took the victim I (the age of 42) as drinking and drinking together with Co-Defendant B and C; (c) thereby, the Defendant was an internal co-defendant and ad hoc
B. The court below's decision witness I, J's statement in court or in investigative agency and the defendant's statement in court room A, B, and C of the court below did not correspond to the fact that the defendant committed an assault against the victim. However, among co-defendant B and the police interrogation protocol of the defendant as co-defendant B, the defendant also seems to have been involved in an assault against the victim (the defendant and the defense counsel consented to the interrogation protocol of the police interrogation as evidence) if the defendant denies the charges consistently, the contents of the above interrogation protocol of the police suspect should not be acknowledged. The defendant and the defense counsel's consent to the interrogation protocol of the suspect interrogation of the defendant as evidence during the trial date can be seen to the purport that the above co-defendant stated as such and it cannot be deemed to have acknowledged its contents.
Furthermore, even if the admissibility of each protocol of suspect examination is recognized, the defendant A who has different provisions of law according to changes in indictment is not the accomplice of the defendant.