폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
The judgment below
Part 2 to 4 of the judgment is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
According to the records of the scope of trial at the trial court, the court below sentenced the crimes No. 1 (Interference with Business) of this case among the facts charged in this case to the crimes No. 2 through No. 4 [Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective crime, a deadly weapon, a bodily injury), a crime of bodily injury, a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, a crime of destruction of property] as stated in the judgment, and appealed only for the crimes No. 2 through No. 4 as stated in the judgment of the court below, the scope of trial at the
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
In relation to a mistake of facts or a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc.), the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
The Defendant alleged mental disorder was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.
The sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the defendant claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Whether certain goods to be determined on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles constitute “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act should be determined by whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body when using the goods in light of social norms.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9624 Decided January 17, 2008). In the instant case, the witness G of the trial court stated to the effect that the Defendant was deprived of the victim G, but he did not fit his body or wall at a distance of about 3 to 4 meters from the victim’s G, and that the Defendant was deprived of the ground, and that the Defendant got out of the lower part of G’s body.
It seems to have come from the ground level rather than the ground level, and it is easy to make the difference from the ground level into the nesg and the reinforced plastic.