beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.10.24 2014노2931

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)

Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The facts charged of this case.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not use a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below that he carried a dangerous object because he did not display a satisfy disease to the victim, and did not use a satisfy by carrying a dangerous object (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of violence against the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a crime of

(misunderstanding of facts as to the crime of injury).

The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that “Dangerous articles” shall include all articles that can be widely used to inflict harm on human life and body even if they are not deadly weapons. Thus, not only the articles made for the purpose of killing or destroying a human body but also the knife, knife, glass bottle, various tools, vehicles, etc. made for other purposes, but also the animals, etc. used for chemical drugs or deadly, such as chemical drugs, are “Dangerous articles” under this Article (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2812, Sept. 6, 2002). Whether certain articles constitute “Dangerous articles” should be determined depending on whether the other party or third party may cause harm to human life or body if they are used in light of social norms in a specific case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9624, Jan. 17, 2008; 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 2003). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, in particular, A, and J in the investigative agency and the lower court court’s statement and CCTV-cap photographs, etc., the Defendant is a shouldered defense disease.