특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복폭행등)등
The judgment below
The acquittal portion shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged of this case, the injury is acquitted.
Where there exist several orders for judgment, such as partial convictions, partial acquittals, etc. on a case prosecuted simultaneously with the scope of concurrent crimes subject to trial at the trial court, part of the judgment may be appealed separately from other parts, and the part not appealed by both parties becomes final and conclusive. Thus, where only the prosecutor appealed on the part of acquittals and part of the concurrent crimes, the part of the judgment of the first instance which pronounced not guiltys and not guiltys on the part of the concurrent crimes, which became final and conclusive by the defendant and the prosecutor’s appeal against the part of the judgment of not guiltys, is not only a public prosecution against the part of the judgment of not guiltys which became final and conclusive by
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402 delivered on January 21, 1992, etc.). According to the records, the court below acknowledged the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (refence, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case, found the Defendant guilty of interference with duties, damage to property, and not guilty of special injury, and dismissed the prosecution against assault.
On October 15, 2018, the prosecutor appealed only from the special injury which was pronounced not guilty.
Therefore, as long as only the prosecutor appealed the portion of innocence, the part of the judgment of the court below's conviction and the part of the dismissal of prosecution is already finalized in the court below, the scope of the judgment of the court below is limited
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and factual errors) is difficult to believe that part of the statement made by the victim B, the only direct evidence concerning the facts charged of a special injury by the defendant, and the evidence, including the remaining statement of the victim, submitted by the prosecutor, was left away from the victim's head with the intention of harming the above victim, thereby causing injury to the victim.