폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) The Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to yellow disorder at the time of committing the instant bodily injury.
(2) The sentence (1.5 million won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B and C (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely an unilateral assault against A and there was no use of violence against A and G or any intrusion upon their residence as described in the facts charged, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on facts, thereby finding the Defendants guilty.
(2) Each sentence (Defendant B: a fine of KRW 1.5 million, Defendant C: a fine of KRW 1.5 million) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the circumstances after the crime, such as the background of the Defendant’s instant bodily injury crime, the details of the crime, the statement to investigation agency, etc., and the various circumstances indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder at the time of the crime.
Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of mental disorder cannot be accepted.
B. In addition to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as a photograph (A) and a written diagnosis of injury (A), etc., the statement in the investigation agency of A, G, or the court of original instance as to Defendant B and C’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are mutually consistent and mutually consistent and consistent, the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants are fully convicted.
Therefore, Defendant B and C’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be accepted.
C. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing