폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A A Fines of 2,00,000 won, Defendant B and C of each fine of 1,50,000 won.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Defendant A (the co-injury to the victim E) was the victim’s face with the victim’s hand floor. However, the victim’s injury, such as mination and mination of the right franchising, etc., which the victim E suffered, is merely the injury the victim E voluntarily or in the course of assaulting the Defendant A, and there is no fact that Defendant A inflicted an injury on the victim E. 2) Defendant B and C were the victim’s victim I and J were the victims in the course of disputing the victim’s dispute with the victim’s E, and there was no fact that Defendant A and C assaulted the victim I and J with the victim I and the victim E and they did not inflict an injury by assaulting the victim E and H.
3) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. B. The lower court’s sentencing of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: fine of KRW 4 million, Defendant B, and C: each of the fines of KRW 3 million is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below by comprehensively taking into account the evidence legitimately adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victim E consistently from the police to the court of the court of the court below, stating that the defendant A had sold his face in the process of exceeding three times, and the victim H has consistently taken three times the victim E face from the police to the court of the court of the court of the court below, and the defendant B and C had consistently taken three times the victim E face from the police to the court of the court of the court of the court of the court below, and the defendant B made a specific statement that the defendant B was able to look into his dub and her buck at the victim, and that he was able to take two times at the time of two times, and the defendant A also stated at the investigative agency that the victim E's buck at the victim E's body.