beta
Text
The judgment below
The dismissal part of the public prosecution is reversed.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecution against special assault is instituted.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Assault, such as a collective deadly weapon, etc.), the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the public prosecution on the ground that the Defendant’s act was not an assault by a dangerous object, but by a simple assault, on the ground that the Defendant’s act was not an assault by a dangerous object, although it could be deemed that the Defendant committed an assault against the victim by causing harm to the victim’s body due to his/her driver’s vehicle, and there was no special credit or pain, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a sum of KRW 1.5 million) is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio, and the prosecutor applied the name of the crime in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.) to "special assault" from "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.)", and the applicable legal provision to "Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act," and "Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (a collective weapon, etc.)" in the facts charged, "1. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.)" was amended to "a special assault on 1.., and therefore, this part of the judgment below was no longer maintained.
Nevertheless, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.
B. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below's determination on the legal principles, facts of recognition, and judgment is acceptable, and in particular, the prosecutor.