beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and the Prosecutor against Defendant C are dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the records, etc. of the judgment on Defendant A’s appeal, Defendant A was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) in the Jung-gu District Court Goyang branch court on August 23, 2012, and filed an appeal on August 30, 2012, but the appeal was filed on September 28, 2012 by dissatisfied with the above judgment. However, Defendant A did not file the appellate brief within 20 days (the Defendant received it at the Defendant’s address) after receiving lawful notification of the receipt of the appellate brief from this court on September 28, 2012 (the Defendant requested the appointment of a state appointed defense counsel on October 2, 2012, but the Defendant received the notification of the dismissal of a state appointed defense counsel on October 5, 2012 (the spouse I received it from the Defendant’s address).
(1) The appeal petition does not contain any provision of the grounds for appeal, and there is no provision of the grounds for ex officio investigation even after examining the record.
2. Determination on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal
A. As to the part of the judgment of the court below on the acquittal of Defendant C in the grounds of appeal, in full view of the following facts: (a) the victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency that Defendant C was unable to drive the victim’s arms after the victim at the time of the instant case; and (b) the witness G of the instant case stated that Defendant C was taking the victim’s arms after the victim’s back; and (c) according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the facts of assaulting the victim jointly with the victim by preventing the Defendant C from taking the victim’s arms after the victim’s back and shakinging down.
Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant C not guilty, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts.
B. In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court concerning the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct examination, the witness of the first instance court was a witness.