폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
The judgment below
The guilty part (including the acquittal part of the reasons) shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
(b).
1. The court below rejected the prosecution on the ground that the victim expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the defendant after the prosecution of the case among the facts charged of this case, and ruled that the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) among the facts charged of this case is guilty, and that the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) is not guilty.
The Defendant only filed an appeal against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below (including the acquittal portion of the reasoning). Since both the Defendant and the Prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissed portion of the judgment of the court below, the dismissed portion of the prosecution was separated and finalized as it is.
Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the guilty portion (including the acquittal portion) belongs to the scope of the judgment of this court.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant: Although the fact that the Defendant assaulted the victim as stated in the facts charged, it does not necessarily mean that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as cerebral cerebral sye, etc., of unknown 14 days of treatment (misunderstanding of facts). Even if the Defendant had inflicted an injury on the victim, as indicated in the facts charged,
Even if the court below’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 years of protection observation) is too unreasonable (unfair sentencing). B. The prosecutor: The defendant, as stated in the facts charged, found the victim’s head at the time and place of the charge to be a 10cc m in diameter, thereby causing injury to the victim. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the facts that the above mistake did not constitute a dangerous object, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (misunderstanding of facts). 3. Ex officio judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.
The name of the offense in the trial of the prosecutor.