폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) There is no fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, took money by threatening the victim, assaults the victim, administers phiphonephones, or made the victim write an knife with a knife with a knife.
2) As to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.), the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim by drinking in the process of disputing the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime indicated in the lower judgment, but did not inflict any injury upon the victim at the time of such act by citing the same as the so-called "self-feasck
B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of 4 years, additional collection of 200,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor tried ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for the appeal, and the prosecutor filed an application for permission to change the contents of the indictment to “Article 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act,” and “Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” which is the legal provision applicable to the above, to “Article 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act,” and “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” respectively, and this part of the indictment was modified by this court’s permission.
On the other hand, the remaining crimes and the modified parts of the judgment of the court below found guilty of the defendant should be sentenced to a single sentence in the concurrent crimes relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is
However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the relevant legal doctrine is us.