폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts under Defendant A1: Defendant A merely obstructed Defendant B’s front front of the Jongno-gu Seoul Lcafeteria and did not assault Defendant B jointly with E, etc. on the ground that Defendant B entered the first floor of the Jongno-gu Seoul Lcafeteria. 2) Unfair sentencing: The punishment (fine 500,000 won) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B did not assault Defendant A, F, and E in collaboration with K. Defendant B.
Of the evidence described in the summary of the evidence, Defendant B and K’s legal statement does not constitute evidence to acknowledge the crimes committed by Defendant B, and the witness F, A, E, and M’s statement is not reliable, and the court below violated the rules of evidence, and the judgment below which convicted Defendant B and K solely based on the above evidence has violated the principle of free evaluation
2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, Defendant A, along with the officers and employees of Defendant A, can be acknowledged that Defendant B used Defendant B and K in the process of raising meals in the room located on the 1st floor of the instant restaurant, and that Defendant B did not have a physical fighting with Defendant A, etc., and Defendant B did not go out of the room. Defendant C, who had been visiting the 1st floor of the instant restaurant, committed acts by Defendant A, etc., and Defendant B and C committed physical fighting in the process of physical fighting, jointly with Defendant A, etc., and jointly with the facts charged. Although the aforementioned assault was committed by the officers and employees of I, the first floor of the instant restaurant (1st floor in the instant restaurant) was committed in the process of preventing Defendant B from entering the said 1st floor of the instant restaurant, and the said assault was committed in the process of preventing Defendant B from entering the said place.
Even if illegality cannot be avoided, Defendant A’s assertion against this cannot be accepted.
B. Defendant A’s inappropriate sentencing.