폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months.
except that this judgment.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
B The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Defendant
C misunderstanding of facts does not have any misunderstanding of facts against the victim A.
As a matter of course, Defendant C was exposed to drinking in order to protect one’s body from the victim A and B, and such drinking constitutes self-defense as a result of serious injury due to the victim A’s snow.
However, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the defendant C's assertion of mistake of facts, it can be recognized that the victim's right side and the right side side side part of the victim's 12 weeks of treatment are caused by the victim's real name by adding approximately 12 weeks of treatment to the victim's fright side and the fright side part of the right side of the victim's fright, and the fact that the victim's right side part of the victim's fright and the right side part of the victim's fright side are attached to the escape of the fright own. Thus, the above argument by the defendant C is without merit.
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is acknowledged that Defendant C brought an action against the victim A during the signal signal, and brought an action against the victim C at the vehicle, and brought an action against the victim C at the vehicle. While the horse dispute occurred from the above victim and his her son, it is recognized that the above victim was at the time of his son's assault. As long as the defendant brought an action against the victim by his her son with the said victim, it is difficult to recognize Defendant C's act of assault as legitimate defense even if the act of assaulted against the above victim was illegal, since the defendant was committed against the victim by her son at the vehicle, it is difficult to recognize the above victim's act of assault as legitimate defense.
Therefore, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.
Defendant .