Whether the crime of violation of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is required to disturb the social order and to create social anxiety.

Even if the act of inflicting bodily injury by multiple force does not constitute a case where social order is disturbed and social apprehension is created, unlike the interpretation of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended on July 14, 1962), it can be determined by Article 3 (1) of the current Act (amended on July 14, 1962).

Article 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Gu)

Defendant 1 and six others

Prosecutor and Defendant

Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (Supreme Court Decision 63Ma2)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

All the Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The fifty-five days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

Provided, That the execution of each of the above types shall be suspended for three years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 1, 2, and 3’s public prosecutions as to the instant case are all dismissed.

(Judgment of Grounds for Prosecution)

The grounds of prosecution of this case are as follows. The prosecutor's reasons for prosecution of this case are as follows. The prosecutor's prosecution of this case are as follows. First, the defendants are those who disrupt social order by multiple force and create social anxiety. Even though prosecution was instituted for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the judgment of the court below is affected by mistake in the application of the Criminal Act. Second, the court below's punishment was imposed as excessive use because the defendant did not make payment of consolation money to the victim or revised punishment of this case. Since the court below's punishment of this case was applied to 10 months, 4 months, 8 months, 200, 4 years, 2 years, 2 years, 3 years, 3 years, 4 years, 1777, 2007, 107, 2 years, 3 years, 3 years, 4 days, 1777, 207, 207, 3 years, and 4 days, 1777, 177.

(Criminal Facts and Evidence)

In addition to adding each of the statements in the trial court of the defendant, the relationship between the facts of the crime acknowledged as a party member and the evidence thereof is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, so it is invoked by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Law)

Since the court below's action against the defendant, etc. falls under Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) (Article 257 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act) of the same Act and considering all circumstances, the defendant, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year within the scope of the term of punishment for which discretionary mitigation has been made by entering each item of Articles 53, 55, and 57 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act, and applying Article 57 (1) of the same Act to Article 57 (1) of the same Act, it is recognized that it is reasonable to suspend the execution of the above sentence in consideration of 5 days of the number of days of detention before the court below's sentence and 52 (1) of the same Act, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date of the final judgment by applying Article 62

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Byung-su (Presiding Judge)