폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000;
2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
Around 4:00 on May 4, 2014, the Defendant and C met the victim E (year 24), victim F (year 24) and F (year 24) and their day-to-day G faced with shoulder, Defendant A’s hand-to-day booms the above E to the floor, and Defendant C cut off the two parts of the above E beyond Defendant C, followed the two parts of the two parts of the above E, followed by the second two parts, and the second part of the two parts of the above E, which Defendant A got back to the first one, and Defendant C continued to take one face of the above F in drinking.
In conclusion, the defendant jointly with C, and the victim E had multiple scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sc
Summary of Evidence
1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each letter of diagnosis (investigative records 11, 12 pages);
1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts and the punishment of selective crimes;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The defendant and his defense counsel regarding the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. However, the defendant and his defense counsel did not go beyond E but they were arrested as a flagrant offender due to the escape of E, thus falling under a justifiable act. However, according to the witness G and E's testimony, E was put at the time, and E was not a flagrant offender or a quasi flagrant offender under Article 211 (1) or (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the argument is without merit.
In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was found to have assessed E's return to the victim. This constitutes an attack exceeding the necessary degree for the arrest of a flagrant offender.
As such, it shall be no mother.