beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles stated to the effect that Defendant A told the victims to the effect that “the victims are “the victims without prejudice,” but it is merely a delivery of the horses from other persons. The place where the said Defendant said that there was no other person, other than the Defendants and victims, and the distance between the said place is 50 meters far from the said place, so it cannot be said that Defendant A’s performance of the said act is unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (fine 300,000 won) is unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles ① Even if Defendant B, like the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, sealed the victim F’s horses once by hand and sealed the victim’s horses at a level of 10 meters, such an act does not constitute an assault in the crime of assault, since it does not pose a risk of causing injury, or may cause physical and physiological pain or displeasure. ② Defendant B is a legitimate act permitted by social norms to avoid fighting against the above Defendant, and is merely an harming the victim F. 2) an unreasonable sentencing sentence (one million won of fine) of the court below is unreasonable.
2. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal
A. According to the part of Defendant A’s legal statement, witness F, and G’s each legal statement in the original instance, each police interrogation protocol of Defendant A’s each police interrogation protocol, and each part of Defendant A’s written accusation, Defendant A’s assertion that “in the event of negligence, year, year,” the victims have expressed their desire as stated in the judgment of the lower court. Such an assertion, as alleged by the Defendant, was made by other people, and it was an act of insulting the victims even if it was received and delivered by other people, as alleged by the Defendant.