폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A only told the victim and H that they wrap, and there was no fact at the time of the victim.
B. Defendant B (1) In light of the legal doctrine, the Defendant suffered losses, etc. from the victim to unsatisfing the said arms in an emergency situation where the victim was satisfying H’s satisfy, and thereby, the said act constituted self-defense. Therefore, the Defendant’s above act constitutes self-defense. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the victim is going to the opposite side of H and B. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant: (b) stated that the Defendant and C and C were at the time of drinking, and (c) stated that he was at the time of drinking the Defendant’s chest due to drinking; and (c) stated that the witness F was at the time of drinking the Defendant’s chest; and (d) the Defendant and the victim stated that he was at the time of drinking, as recorded in the facts charged, the Defendant may recognize the fact of assaulting the victim as described in the facts charged.
B. As to Defendant B’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles, first of all, it is difficult to view that there was a violation of H’s body or that there was an intention of defense against the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) the victim made a statement that he saw his own timber in his arms when she wraped with A; and (b) the Defendant’s aforementioned change was made by the investigative agency that H had made the victim bleeped her face once after having blished the blish with the floor; and (c) it was difficult to believe that H’s statement that he she was flicked with the blick, etc.; and (b) it was difficult to deem that there was an infringement on H’s body or that there was an intention of defense against the Defendant; (b) it is insignificant that the Defendant’s participation in the Defendant’s assault was a primary offender, and that there was no economic condition.