폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. On July 25, 2014, after seven days from July 25, 2014, the date on which the judgment of the court below was rendered, the defendant submitted a petition of appeal to the head of Simna prison. Since it is apparent that the defendant's appeal was filed after the right to appeal was extinguished, it shall be dismissed by decision pursuant to Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, with respect to the prosecutor's appeal to be tried at the same time, the appeal shall be dismissed by decision pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal shall also be dismissed by decision. It is so decided as per Disposition.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal
A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.
B. In 2010, the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime in the same year, including the suspended sentence for the crime of bodily injury and obstruction of performance of official duties; the suspended sentence for the crime of fraud, bodily injury, and obstruction of performance of official duties in 2008; the same year; the crime of fraud, bodily injury, obstruction of performance of official duties, and assault; and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for six months in 2010 as the same crime, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence for six months in 2010, in violation of the matters to be observed for probation, and repeated the instant crime during the period of repeated offense on October 201; the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes over ten times in a short period of less than two months; and the Defendant did not agree with the victims.
However, the fact that the defendant seems to recognize and reflect his mistake, the degree of damage of the victims is not more severe, the victim H does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant suffers from stimulative disorder, so this is in the state of mental disability.