폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In determining facts and misapprehending the legal principles, the Defendant did not have a victim who was suffering from an illness, and even if the victim did not exercise the direct tangible power, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and sentenced the Defendant guilty.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following facts are acknowledged: ① the defendant saw the victim as the victim, and her obscing the scam, and scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscams, ③ the victim scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam
In addition, the crime of assault under Article 260 of the Criminal Act is sufficient for the body of a person with physical strength and does not necessarily require direct contact to his body, and when considering the fact that the victim was in a situation where he could feel a physical danger due to the strike of the So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called"and the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case where the defendant committed assault against the victim because he was a dangerous object, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as argued by the defendant and his defense counsel, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Although the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing was based on a very dangerous crime against the victim, the defendant has no record of violent crime.