폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.
except that this shall not apply.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable for each sentence (one and half years of imprisonment; confiscation; Defendant B; one year and six months of probation; three years of probation; three years of probation; community service; Defendant C: imprisonment of one year and six months of probation; three years of probation; three years of probation; probation service; 160 hours of probation); and
2. The Defendant committed the instant crime again even though he/she had been punished several times for the same offense (such as juvenile protective disposition and probation two times).
In the instant case, the victim suffered from the thrings, etc. in need of approximately six weeks of treatment, and in light of the motive, circumstance, and method of the instant crime, the quality of the crime is not weak.
However, the defendant has not been punished for the same crime for the last three years, and the victim does not want the punishment by mutual consent with the victim.
The Defendant has divided and reflected the mistake of the instant crime in depth, and is living as a sincere member of society without recommitting the crime.
The defendant has the wife to support and his/her married couple.
In addition, considering all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, the punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.
3. Defendants B and C did not want the punishment of the Defendants by mutual consent with the victim, and the Defendants are against themselves by breaking the mistake of the crime of this case.
However, Defendants have been punished for the same kind of crime.
In particular, Defendant C has a record of criminal punishment for violent crimes only in 2012.
Examining the degree of damage caused by the instant case, motive and circumstance of the commission of the crime, etc. as well as other conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s sentence is too
4. Conclusion.