폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. When investigating the facts and making phone calls with the police investigation officers and prosecution investigators, the victim G made a statement that Defendant A and Defendant B had satisfed with satisfing his dubage and satching his bat, and Defendant B did not perform any act after having agreed with the Defendants, and Defendant B submitted a confirmation document that Defendant B did not perform any act.
In light of the fact that there was a significant fighting between the Defendants and G Twits, etc., it is difficult to believe the re-appellant’s confirmation document, and in light of the above statements, etc. in the investigation agency of G, Defendant B may recognize the fact that Defendant B inflicted an injury by assaulting G as stated in this part of the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of 4 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 2 million won) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having been proved to the extent that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Defendant B had inflicted bodily injury on the above victim by putting the victim G’s satisf at the time and place indicated in the crime No. 1 of the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and putting the victim’s satisfe with the victim’s finger, and thereby, it cannot be deemed as having been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the above victim
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
(1) At the court of the first instance, G was the Defendant A’s fransh with his fransh, and the Defendant B was her own.