상해치사등
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for fourteen years.
Defendant
A.
1. The name of the Defendant of each item is omitted and only indicated “Defendant” insofar as there is no specific problem with the summary of the grounds for appeal.
A. Defendant A 1) Violation of the Welfare Act and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles) (Article 1-A of the Criminal Act as indicated in the judgment below). The Defendant did not arrest the victim in collusion with B, but did not arrest the victim.
Nevertheless, the defendant conspiredd with B to detain the victim.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles.
B) The Defendant violated the Welfare Act of Persons with Disabilities and caused bodily injury (the crime No. 1-B. of the judgment of the court below) (the crime No. 1-B. of the judgment below) committed an act of assaulting the victim to a large tree with no prompt response as of December 17, 2019, which was the day when the victim died. However, the Defendant did not committed an act of assaulting the victim with B as soon as possible after combining it with B from December 12, 2019 to December 16, 2019. The assault committed on December 17, 2019 did not amount to the death of the victim, and thus, the Defendant could not have predicted the death of the victim, and there was no relation between the Defendant’s assault and the victim’s death.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misconception of facts or by misapprehending legal principles.
2) The lower court’s sentence (17 years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(c)
The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the public prosecutor is too uncomfortable.
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court’s judgment also held that Defendant A violated the Welfare Act and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement).