beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B. The defendant A and the defendant C are innocent.
Reasons
1. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint conflict) against the victim BB among the facts charged against the defendant Gap. Since the prosecutor did not file an appeal, the part of the above innocence against the defendant A was separated and confirmed, and excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. A prosecutor 1) Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts with R, Q, and AJ on September 21, 201, Defendant A’s act of assaulting and injuring the victim AI on or around September 19, 201 constitutes an organized retaliation at the level against the victim who left the Youngdo, a criminal organization. Even if Defendant A’s ground of assaulting the victim was reported to an investigation agency about the violent case around 2009 and was punished by Defendant A, this also constitutes an act of retaliation against reporting the organization members to an investigation agency, and thus, it should be deemed as an “act” as a member of the criminal organization. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that Defendant A did not “act” as a member of the criminal organization. However, there was an error of law of misunderstanding of facts regarding the lower court’s determination that Defendant A did not constitute “act” as a member of the criminal organization. In so doing, the lower court’s entirety of the Defendants’ imprisonment with prison labor for two years, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and Defendant C: 1 and June 6).
B. Defendants 1) The lower court’s assertion of erroneous facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine in common between Defendants A and B is unlawful as it is in essence infringing the cross-examination right when the family name statementer (N, installed with a cover facility for the witness examination of AO). Thus, the testimony of the family name statementer cannot be used as evidence of guilt. Moreover, in the case of AO of the family name statementer AO, the prosecutorial assistant BT belonging to the prosecutor’s office at which the investigation was conducted at the time of the examination of witness is conducted without the consent of