폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not have a knife the victim with a knife, and the Defendant did not have a knife the victim’s left shoulder with the knife examination.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, and community service order 160 hours, etc.) is too unreasonable.
2. As to the assertion of mistake of fact
A. On August 21, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 21:00 on August 21, 2013, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, based on the fact that the Defendant: (b) in the Dinology located in Osan-si C, the victim E (Inn, 51 years of age) and the preceding day, he tried to write the victim with the kitchen, which is a dangerous weapon, (29cm in length, 17cm in length in length), and (c) tried to set the part of the victim one time by the neck (1m in length), which is a dangerous thing, and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the face of the shoulder section, in need of medical treatment for about 14 days on the left side.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant stated consistently to the same purport after the Defendant stated the police officer dispatched on the day of the instant case that the Defendant was exposed to the seat of the Defendant, and that the victim did not appear to have made a false statement during the short time.
C. 1) As evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case, the victim's investigative agency, medical certificate, one kitchen, and one log knife in the court of the original trial and the court of the first instance, the evidence alone is considered to be guilty of the part of the facts charged in this case. 2) First, as to the victim's statement, the victim made a statement that he had the left shoulder at the investigative agency, and the victim made a statement that he had the right shoulder at the court of the original instance that he would not be present at the court of the original instance, and it is in light of the rule of experience that the victim's statement is not consistent, such as making a statement that he would have the left shoulder again at the court of the first instance, and that he would not properly memory the part facing the examination.