Text
All the judgment of the court below (including the portion not guilty) shall be reversed.
Defendant
B and C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000, and the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts recognized the fact that Defendant A had flabbbbage of the victim I. However, the victim I was not injured by the flabing of flab, not by the act of flabing the flab. 2) The Defendant 1 of the misunderstanding of the legal principle is a legitimate act that the victim I flabed Defendant A’s head flab and flabed the victim I’s head flab, and it is a passive resistance that does not go against social rules.
B. The Prosecutor (Misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles) in the instant case is the case where the Defendants and the victims have fightingd, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendants are liable for the injury inflicted upon the victims as joint principal offenders.
The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on co-principal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal
A. Although the appellate brief submitted by the prosecutor omitting a trial did not explicitly state that “the first instance court omitted a trial on part of the facts charged in relation to substantive concurrent crimes”, it is deemed that the content of the statement is prior to the assertion of omission in the trial.
Even if the prosecutor did not assert this as the reason for appeal, where the first instance court omitted a trial on part of the facts charged in relation of substantive concurrent crimes, the appellate court should reverse the part omitted in the first instance court ex officio and render a judgment on that part without any allegations by the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7848, Feb. 12, 2009). The part omitted in the lower court’s judgment is a matter of ex officio determination.
The prosecutor brought the prosecution against the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants jointly assaulted the victims E, H, and I, and each of the offenses of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) due to the above victims, was in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes.
However, there is a problem.