폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The crime No. 1 in the judgment of the defendant is a fine of 3 million won or more, and the crime No. 2-4 in the judgment.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the special damage (1) by misapprehending the fire extinguisher at the location of the instant fire extinguisher (hereinafter “instant fire extinguisher”) and destroying television by the Defendant, and otherwise did not engage in any conduct that could cause harm to the life or body of the victim with the fire extinguisher at the location of the instant fire extinguisher, and thus, the fire extinguisher at this case does not constitute a dangerous object.
② Since the Defendant used the fire extinguisher of this case, the Defendant carried the fire extinguisher.
shall not be deemed to exist.
(2) Regarding the special intimidation, there is no fact that the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, has threatened the victim as if the Defendant were influences.
In addition, although the defendant was suffering from knife and steel knife at the time of the instant case, there was no fact that the defendant had taken the knife and knife to the persons on the site immediately and threatened the victim with such water.
② In light of G’s statement that the Defendant intending to enter the victim’s room citing her boom, and that the Defendant was hiding the brupted, the Defendant’s notice of harm and injury caused by the Defendant’s act was delivered to the victim.
As it cannot be seen, it is only an attempted special intimidation.
(3) With respect to the special injury, there is no fact that the Defendant had the head of the victim due to the beer’s disease as stated in this part of the facts charged.
(4) As to the act of injury, the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim by walking the victim’s face, as stated in this part of the facts charged, and only suffered an injury by the victim by exceeding the victim’s face.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a crime No. 1 in its holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and a crime No. 2-5 in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
The lower court shall decide on February 16, 2016 that the service of the defendant to the defendant is by means of public notice and shall be made by means of delivery. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27518