(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.12.20. 선고 2016노552 판결

It is recognized that the Defendant jointly with A that inflicted a serious injury on the victim in need of six weeks’ medical treatment. However, the Defendant committed the instant crime contingently, and the lower court deposited KRW 2 million on behalf of the victim and did not have any history of punishment exceeding the fine. In addition, in full view of all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the instant crime, the motive and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing should be deemed to have been too uneasible and reversed.

3. Determination on applications for compensation order

An applicant for compensation filed an application for remedy with the Defendant and A to pay interest of 20% per annum from the day following the date of service of a duplicate of the application for compensation order and 10,26,394 won to the date of payment to the applicant for compensation. However, in the original instance, the Defendant deposited KRW 2 million to the applicant for compensation, and there is room for dispute over the amount of business suspension damage, medical expenses and solatium claimed by the applicant for compensation, and it cannot be deemed that the existence or scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation is unclear or that it is appropriate to issue a compensation order, and thus, the applicant for compensation cannot be accepted

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 32 (1) 3 and Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition.