폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not go to the lower part of the victim’s breath by dumping the flaps. The Defendant did not commit a crime in collusion with A. There is no causal link with the Defendant’s act. 2) The victim committed an act of interference with worship at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant led the victim to the force to defend this. As such, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of suspension of execution of a fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the argument of misunderstanding of facts in the original judgment, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the above argument, and the lower court determined that the Defendant conspiredd with A to inflict bodily injury on the victim, and the Defendant’s act did not constitute self-defense or legitimate act because it
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment by closely comparing the records of this case, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. It is reasonable to respect the allegation of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.