beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.05.14 2015노826

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant merely flaged the flag of a flag and flag, etc., and did not put a tree flag in order to inflict an injury on the victim.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the punishment of violence, etc. (a collective action, deadly weapons, etc.) is not established against the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, E’s specific statement at the investigative agency that “The Defendant’s failure was frightened by the Defendant, which was on the table manager, and the tree fright, which contained a frighten, was cut down on the right side, and the fright was cut down on the right side,” and the situation at the time of committing the crime, the victim’s upper part, etc., the fact that the Defendant was frightened and inflicted an injury can be fully acknowledged as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The phrase “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or the third party could feel a danger to life or body by using the same in social norms.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below did so.