상해등
The conviction part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A. Imprisonment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each punishment sentenced by the lower court (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the court below found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged, based on the misunderstanding of the facts (the part of the judgment of the court below 2 which acquitted the Defendants) (the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants). The judgment of the court below 2 erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) Each sentence sentenced by the second instance court to the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, Defendant B: fine of three million won) is too uneased and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on each of the grounds for appeal against Defendant A and the Prosecutor, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance that Defendant A rendered ex officio prior to the judgment on each of the grounds for appeal against the above Defendant A, the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance and joined arguments in the trial at the court of second instance. Since the first decision against the Defendant A and the conviction part of the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the guilty part of the judgment of the court of second instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the conviction part against the Defendant A cannot be maintained further in this respect.
B. Examining the evidence of this case as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts in light of the records, the second instance court, based on its stated reasoning, proved this part of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts.
In contrast, the Defendants jointly damaged the windows of the broadcasting room of the apartment management office of this case.