In a case where the Defendant was indicted on charges of attempted murder and destruction of special property for murder committed by Gap and Eul on the ground that Gap had sustained a long-term dispute due to lease problems, but did not directly shock Eul and did not cut Gap, and caused the bodily injury to the public by falling off the floor after leaving his body, and at the same time destroyed and damaged Byung's vehicles parked in the same place; the escape of Eul was hacking Gap humping down several times to hump Gap and hing Gap humping them and hing them down, and caused the bodily injury to Gap in the course of fighting, the case holding that the Defendant acquitted Gap and Eul guilty of attempted murder among the facts charged, and guilty of each special injury and damage of special property for Eul.

The Defendant, who had been suffering from a dispute for a long time due to the lease problem, was fluored by the speed of the vehicle, but was fluored by the Defendant, but was fluored by the Defendant, without any direct shock, and was fluored by the Defendant, and was fluored by the Defendant, and then damaged the vehicle owned by C, which was parked at the same time, and damaged the vehicle by taking the vehicle owned by C, which was parked at the same time. The Defendant was prosecuted as charges of attempted murder to and damage to the Company A and the special property damaged by C, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant, while driving away the vehicle and fluoring the vehicle Gap, was fluored several times, and was fluored by the Defendant, and was fluored with the Party A while fla

In light of the fact that the store operated by the defendant in the building Gap, which had been operated in the building Gap, finally aggravated appraisal after the termination of the lease agreement and the compulsory execution of the building name, the hacker used for the crime, such as about 39cm in total length, about 11cm in width, 4cm in diameter, 4cm in diameter, 4cm in weight, and 1.46 kilograms in weight, etc., if the defendant prices the head or face of the store, etc., it is doubtful that the defendant would have had an fatal intention to kill Gap at least, but there is no doubt that the defendant would have attempted to kill Gap; however, it is sufficient to acknowledge the possibility of the defendant's death, the circumstances at the time and contents of the defendant's statement at the time of the defendant's body fighting with Eul, and the circumstances before and after the defendant's death with Eul, the defendant cannot be seen as having been found guilty of each of the facts charged by the defendant's intention or omission of the jury verdict without any reasonable doubt.

Articles 13, 250(1), 254, 257(1), 258-2(1), 366, and 369(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 46(5) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials; Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Both parties

Masung et al.

Law Firm Dodam et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Gohap654 Decided September 6, 2018

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One (No. 1) seized net value shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) A prosecutor;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal of reasons in the original judgment)

A) In full view of the background and motive leading up to committing the crime, the type and method of the deadly weapons used for committing the crime, the father and repetition of the attack, the possibility of the occurrence of the death, etc., the Defendant had attempted to kill the victim Nonindicted 1. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) The Defendant recognized the victim Nonindicted Party 2 as the victim in a passenger car before and after receiving the victim Nonindicted Party 2, and did not make any decision on the price of the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s head due to the decline, but did not make any decision. The lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The defendant (e.g., unfair form)

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

Examining the reasoning of appeal ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the crime of special injury to the victim non-indicted 2 and the crime of special injury to the victim non-indicted 3's car of the victim's non-indicted 3 is a crime of ordinary concurrent crimes, since the defendant driving a rocketing car, which is a dangerous object, and received a car owned by the victim non-indicted 2 and the victim non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3, who was parked in the same place, and the crime of special

However, while the lower court determined that each of the above crimes was in a substantive concurrent relationship, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evaluation of the number of crimes, as a result, it is difficult to view that such errors affected the judgment given that there is no difference in the scope of punishment against the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do761, Sept. 25, 2008, etc.). Accordingly, the lower court did not reverse ex officio for the foregoing reason

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1) Summary of each of the facts charged

A) Attempted murder committed against the victim Nonindicted 2

On June 7, 2018, at around 08:20, the Defendant parked in the vicinity of Nonindicted 1’s dwelling area and waiting for the vehicle, which is a dangerous object (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) at the front of Nonindicted 1’s dwelling area in Seoul (No. 1 omitted), and Nonindicted 1 went to drive and drive the vehicle after driving the vehicle. Nonindicted 1 parked in the “○○ Building” located in Seoul (No. 2 omitted) and moved into the “○○○ Building” located in the Seoul (No. 1 omitted) while waiting for the vehicle and parked in the vicinity, Nonindicted 1 was on board the said building, and immediately obstructed Nonindicted 1’s behind the instant vehicle, which was a dangerous object prepared for Nonindicted 1 to stop. Nonindicted 1’s front of the instant vehicle (No. 39cm, 쇠 head-m, 14cm, 14m, 14m, and 16m). However, Nonindicted 1’s access to the said building, which was found in Seoul (No. 36m).

Around 08:22 on the same day, the Defendant, on board the instant vehicle, took care of Nonindicted Party 1 at the entrance of the “△△△ Party 1” parking lot on the same day, and took care of Nonindicted Party 1 at a rapid rate. However, Nonindicted Party 2 (the age of 58), who was on the next side, was able to take away from the floor after sunrise.

As a result, the Defendant attempted to murder Nonindicted Party 1 and attempted to murder Nonindicted Party 2 for about 12 weeks of medical treatment to the victim Nonindicted Party 2, but did not commit an attempted crime, such as cutting down and closing down the body of parts 1 in spine L1.

B) Attempted murder committed against the victim Nonindicted 1

As described in the above paragraph (a) above, the Defendant: (a) taken advantage of the instant car to Nonindicted Party 1, but did not directly shock the victim Nonindicted Party 1; and (b) was able to drive away from the instant car, citing the decline described in the instant paragraph (a) by the victim Nonindicted Party 1, the victim’s Nonindicted Party 1 was driving away from the instant car; and (c) was placed in front of the “(mutual 1 omitted)” located in Seoul ( Address 4 omitted); and (d) went back from the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s head to the head; and (e) took place the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s hand, etc. to prevent this in the process.

In other words, the Defendant continued to use the victim’s non-indicted 1 as a hacker and hacker down on the floor, and continued to drive (trade name 5 omitted). In the vicinity of the “(trade name 2 omitted) store located in Seoul (No. 5 omitted), the Defendant placed the victim’s non-indicted 1’s head toward the head of the “(name 5 omitted).” The Defendant placed the victim’s non-indicted 1 with the victim Nonindicted 1, who prevented him, put the victim’s body fighting, put the victim’s head and face into the victim’s body, put the victim’s head and face on several occasions, etc., and arrested the police officer dispatched after receiving a report on his body fighting.

As a result, the Defendant attempted to murder Nonindicted Party 1, but the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s strong resistance, caused the injury to the victim Nonindicted Party 1, which requires approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment, such as the mouth of sacrificing and the two openings and openings that require approximately 3 weeks of medical treatment, but did not lead to an attempted crime.

2) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of each of the charges on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to deem that the Defendant had no reasonable doubt that there was an intention to kill Nonindicted 1 of the victim, even if the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim’s non-indicted 1, with the intent to injure the victim Nonindicted 1.

① The time of the instant crime was the time when the passage of people and vehicles was frequent, and the place of the crime was set up with a large number of market TV, and the human being was unfolded.

② Although the Defendant placed the victim Nonindicted Party 1 on several occasions, the victim Nonindicted Party 1 continued to move in with her hand and her arms, and the balance between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 is lost, and the luxious distance is not visible. In addition, the upper part of the victim Nonindicted Party 1 suffered from her head is only two openings where approximately three weeks of treatment is required.

③ At the time of shocking the victim Nonindicted 2, the instant car driven by the Defendant was short of the distance of movement, the maximum speed is limited to 21 km per hour, and the victim Nonindicted 1 did not receive a direct price by avoiding it by side of the instant car. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was aware of the possibility of death as at the time when intending to obtain the victim Nonindicted 1 as the instant car.

④ The Defendant committed an act to keep the victim Nonindicted Party 1 from her head at the time of her head, her head, her head, and her head, but did not engage in any act to actively seek back the victim Nonindicted Party 1, and the victim Nonindicted Party 1 did not commit any aggressive act against the victim Nonindicted Party 1 when she was in a situation where the victim Nonindicted Party 1 took the Defendant’s body above her body. While the victim Nonindicted Party 1 was in a situation where she was in the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s her body, she was faced with the victim Nonindicted Party 1, but did not her head at the time of her head, her head, her head, and her head. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not her head at the time when she was faced with the victim Nonindicted Party 1, even if she was in contact with the victim Nonindicted Party 1.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) The criminal intent of murder is not necessarily deemed to have the intention of murdering or planned. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing another person’s death due to one’s own act, and its perception or prediction is not only conclusive, but also an uncertain intentional act. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was only no criminal intent of murder or assault at the time of committing the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, the issue of whether the defendant had the criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and usage of the prepared deadly weapon, degree of attack, and possibility of causing death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do19137, Mar. 24, 2016). In addition, where the defendant reasonably proves that there is considerable relation between an indirect fact and an indirect fact that can reasonably be proven by the empirical rule 201, supra, 401.

B) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged. According to this, there is a doubt that the Defendant did not have dolusence to murdering Nonindicted 1 at least the victim Nonindicted 1.

① On June 4, 2018, the store operated by the Defendant was finally subject to compulsory execution and the appraisal has deteriorated after the victim Nonindicted Party 1 and the lease problems have undergone disputes for a long time.

② The Defendant was waiting for the victim Nonindicted 1 in the vicinity of the building in which he was called the victim Nonindicted 1, and sought access to the victim’s vehicle of this case. Nonindicted 1, the victim Nonindicted 1, who was waiting for the victim in the entrance of the “△△△△△△△” parking lot, was faced with Nonindicted 2, who was waiting for the victim in the entrance of the “△△△△△△” parking lot, by driving the victim Nonindicted 1 aboard the instant vehicle of this case,

③ After that, the Defendant cited hives and hives, the Victim Nonindicted Party 1 was driving away from the victim Nonindicted Party 1, and the Victim got hives, leading to the said victim, and the Victim Nonindicted Party 1 prevented or prevents the Victim from taking hives or selling. In the absence of such restraint, the Defendant may have suffered fatal measures.

④ The Defendant, at least five (5) days prior to the instant crime, was brought to the chief of the steering line with a chain set in the instant car tamp. However, the chains used in committing the instant crime may be put in a fatal top, when the Defendant prices approximately 39cm in total length, 11cm in width, 4cm in diameter, 4cm in diameter, 4cm in diameter, 4cm in diameter, and 1.46 kilograms in diameter (Evidence No. 129 through 132 pages of evidence record).

C) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court and the lower court, the time and place of the instant crime, the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s appearance and wife suffered from the escape, the degree of awareness of the possibility of the Defendant’s death, and the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s physical fighting, as well as the following circumstances, cannot be deemed as proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant had the intention or negligence of murder solely on the basis of the aforementioned recognition.

(1) Details of each statement made by the Defendant and the victim Nonindicted 1

① The Defendant consistently stated from the prosecution to the court of the lower court and the court of the trial, that he did not have the intent to kill Nonindicted Party 1, and that he was merely able to make a divorce. Moreover, even though the Defendant appeared to have made an insulting speech from Nonindicted Party 1 on the day of the instant crime, it was only a self-defluence of having a lot of talks similar to those of the victim prior to the instant crime (Evidence Record 330 pages).

② The victim Nonindicted Party 1 also testified at an investigative agency that the victim Nonindicted Party 1 had no dispute over usuals at the time of the instant crime, rather, he did not know that the Defendant would die (Evidence No. 70 pages, 426 pages of the evidence record).

(2) The situation before and after the defendant shocked the victim non-indicted 2 into the vehicle of this case

① After having arrived at the victim Nonindicted 1’s home, the Defendant got out of the said victim for 20 to 30 minutes. The Defendant obstructed the victim Nonindicted 1 from leaving a vehicle on board with the instant vehicle, and then endeded the victim Nonindicted 1, who was brought out at the vehicle, without immediately turning the victim Nonindicted 1 toward the vehicle, immediately going through or going against the price with a chain. In light of these developments and the Defendant’s behavior, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had taken the intent to kill the victim Nonindicted 1 while the Defendant was extremely interested.

② Although the Defendant continued to drive the instant car toward Nonindicted Party 1, the distance from the said victim was shorter, the Defendant started a stop after a stop, and started again, and was at the highest speed at the time of shocking Nonindicted Party 2, and even based on CCTV images on the △△ Dora parking lot, the Defendant was not in a situation in which the Defendant was faced with Nonindicted Party 1 while driving the instant car at a speed.

(3) The situation at the time when the defendant fights the victim non-indicted 1 with a net value and puts his body in force.

① After the Defendant shocked the victim Nonindicted 2 with the instant passenger vehicle, the Defendant saw the victim Nonindicted 1 as the hiff and displayed the hiff on several occasions in the process of inducing the victim Nonindicted 1. However, in light of the victim Nonindicted 1’s appearance and behavior, etc. as indicated in the crime CCTV images and CCTV-cap photographs (Evidence Nos. 19,50), it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant committed the hiff by making the head, etc. to put the victim Nonindicted 1 in a fatal position. In addition, considering the victim Nonindicted 1’s two duf photographs (Evidence No. 58 submitted by the Defendant), it cannot be readily concluded that the said victim directly hiffed the head’s body, unlike the victim Nonindicted 1’s statement.

② In the process of fighting the victim’s body in front of the store “(trade name 2 omitted)” with the victim Nonindicted Party 1, it is not specifically confirmed that the Defendant satisfying the head of his body with his/her chain.

D) Furthermore, in the criminal procedure conducted in the form of a participatory trial to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of justice, the collective opinion presented to the trial division as to the recognition of facts is effective as a recommendation to help the judge of the fact-finding court who has the full power over the preparation of evidence and fact-finding under the principle of substantial direct examination and court-oriented trials. In case where the jury participated in the whole process of the examination of facts, such as witness examination, and the verdict of innocence issued by unanimous opinion as to the preparation of evidence and fact-finding such as the credibility of the witness's statement, are adopted as it is in accord with the trial court's conviction, in light of the purport and spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination and court-oriented trials adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court's judgment on the admission of evidence and fact-finding conducted through such procedure appears to be sufficient and clearly opposite to it in the appellate court's new examination of evidence, and thus, it is necessary to respect the court below's decision 2005Do4165, Apr. 1, 2005).

The lower court, through a participatory trial, adopted a verdict of innocence issued by the unanimous opinion by the jury and found the jury not guilty of each part of the charges. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court cannot be deemed to have erred by the jury’s verdict, and even if it is based on the outcome re-re-re-re-issued and viewing each CD (Evidence No. 50, 65 of the evidence list) containing image improvement and a CD (Evidence No. 84) and CCTV images taken on the face of the crime, it does not appear that the lower court clearly opposed to the lower judgment.

E) Meanwhile, the prosecutor tried to murder Nonindicted 1 of the victim Nonindicted 2 as the victim Nonindicted 2, and indicted the victim Nonindicted 2 as to this part of the crime of attempted murder. The lower court determined that there was an intentional injury even if the Defendant was aware that the Defendant attempted to injure Nonindicted 1 of the victim Nonindicted 2 and did not properly recognize whether the victim Nonindicted 2 was in the scene, while recognizing that the Defendant had inflicted an injury on the victim Nonindicted 2 of the victim Nonindicted 2, and did not properly recognize that the Defendant was in the scene. In such a case where the use of the intent to commit the crime to a person other than the victim was at issue, the lower court did not err in its incomplete deliberation on the ground that there was no direct relation to whether the Defendant actually perceived Nonindicted 2 of the victim Nonindicted 2.

In addition, the court below acknowledged the fact that the victim non-indicted 1 was displayed several times on the ground of the reasons stated in its holding, but did not recognize that the head was the price of the head. The court below and the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred in the incomplete hearing on the ground that there was no explicit judgment.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or misconceptions of facts as alleged in the prosecutor’s inspection, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation

C. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor

The crime of this case was committed by the defendant against the victim non-indicted 2, who was in the vicinity of the victim by driving his car toward the victim non-indicted 1, and the victim non-indicted 2 was injured. The escape is very serious in light of the risk of the crime tool and method, etc. Even though the defendant was in dispute with the victim non-indicted 1, the crime of using violence cannot be used in the form of this case, and further, the victim non-indicted 2 did not have any relation in the process of the crime. The victim's wife was necessary for treatment for a considerable period of time, and the victim's body part also fell under important parts such as spine and pelle, etc., and thus, the degree of damage is serious. The defendant was punished by a fine for the crime of this case to the non-indicted 1, who was punished by a fine for a limited amount of time against the victim, even though the defendant was punished by the non-indicted 1.

However, the Defendant recognized the fact that he injured the victims and damaged the vehicle, and in particular, the part that the victim Nonindicted Party 2 suffered from the injury is divided in depth. The victim Nonindicted Party 2 agreed to pay KRW 15 million to the victim Nonindicted Party 2 at the time of the trial, and the victim Nonindicted Party 3 Co. 3, who committed the crime of destroying and damaging special goods, did not want the above victims to be punished for the Defendant. Such circumstances are favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and background of crime, means and consequence of crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments and the reasons for sentencing as follows, including the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court and the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee, as well as the opinions of the jury 1) on the sentencing expressed by the lower court that was proceeding as a participatory trial, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is entirely reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is decided again after the pleading (inasmuch as the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in whole by accepting the defendant's appeal, it shall not be

【Basic Facts】

The Defendant, from May 209 to May 6, 2009, was operating a restaurant with the “(mutual 3 omitted)” (hereinafter “instant store”) of the first floor of the commercial building (hereinafter “instant building”). On January 7, 2016, the victim Nonindicted 1 (the victim Nonindicted 60 years of age) acquired the ownership of the instant building and sought to renew the lease contract for the instant store with the victim Nonindicted 1 (the victim Nonindicted 1) after acquiring the ownership of the instant building, but the lease contract was terminated with the expiration of May 2016 due to differences in the terms and conditions of lease.

However, the Defendant refused to leave the instant store on the ground that Nonindicted Party 1 demanded the victim Nonindicted Party 1 to raise rent excessively and suffered significant damages, such as the failure to recover the premium, etc. The victim Nonindicted Party 1 also filed a lawsuit for the name of the building and attempted to enforce a compulsory execution several times from October 2017, but failed due to the conflict with the Defendant.

In the foregoing process, the Defendant filed a criminal complaint with the victim non-indicted 1, and made a demonstration before the victim non-indicted 1’s residence, etc., and was subject to compulsory execution against the building of this case on June 4, 2018, and the victim non-indicted 1 was engaged in a extremely unfair appraisal against the victim non-indicted 1 on the day of the crime of this case (on June 7, 2018), while driving the car of this case on the day of the crime of this case (vehicle No. 1 omitted) in order to conduct a demonstration before the victim non-indicted 1’s residence, the Defendant got the victim non-indicted 1 to have a dispute with the victim.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Special injury to the victim non-indicted 2 and special damage to the victim

On June 7, 2018, at around 08:20, the Defendant parked the instant vehicle, which is a dangerous object, in front of the dwelling place of Nonindicted Party 1 located in Seoul (No. 1 omitted), and parked in the vicinity of the said vehicle, and Nonindicted Party 1 went to drive and drive the vehicle again, and Nonindicted Party 1 parked in the “○○ Building” located in Seoul (No. 2 omitted) and entered the said building while waiting in the vicinity, Nonindicted Party 1 was on board the said building while driving the instant vehicle immediately obstructed Nonindicted Party 1’s behind the vehicle, which is a dangerous object in advance (No. 39cm, head 1cm, and 1.4km). Nonindicted Party 1 went to the “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, but omitted.”

Around 08:22 on the same day, the Defendant, who was on board the instant vehicle, took a sudden speed to Nonindicted 1’s escape at the entrance of the “△△△ Party 1” parking lot. However, Nonindicted 2 (the age of 58) was left behind the said vehicle, and was able to remove the victim Nonindicted 2 (the age of 58) from the floor after being able to leave the body of the air, and was parked at the entrance of the parking lot, and received the victim Nonindicted 3 Co. 3’s (vehicle number 2 omitted) car owned by the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant attempted to inflict an injury on Nonindicted 1 by carrying a vehicle, which is a dangerous object, caused an injury to the victim Nonindicted 2, such as the frame and closure of the part 1 in spine L1, which requires approximately 12 weeks medical treatment, and at the same time damaged the said negative car in a way that the sum of repair costs exceeds KRW 8,287,618.

2. Special injury to the victim Nonindicted 1

As stated in Paragraph 1, the Defendant was able to look at the victim Nonindicted 1 by using the instant car, but did not directly shock the victim Nonindicted 1, and the victim Nonindicted 1 was able to immediately boomed from the instant car, citing the decline as stated in Paragraph 1, and immediately drop off from the instant car, and she was in front of the “(mutual name 1 omitted)” located in Seoul ( Address 4 omitted). In turn, the Defendant 1’s head was humping back to the victim’s head, and the victim Nonindicted 1’s hand humb, etc. was humpted during that process.

In other words, the Defendant continued to use the victim’s non-indicted 1 as a hacker and hacker away from the floor, and continued to drive (trade name 5 omitted). In the vicinity of the “(trade name 2 omitted) store located in Seoul (No. 5 omitted), the Defendant placed the victim’s non-indicted 1’s head toward the head, and put the victim’s non-indicted 1 into the body and put the victim’s body fighting with the victim non-indicted 1, and then sold the victim’s head and face to the victim’s non-indicted 1’s body, and arrested the police officer who was called upon receiving a report on his body fighting.

As a result, the Defendant carried dangerous articles with the victim non-indicted 1, who is in need of approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment, and suffered bodily injury, such as double-open medical treatment that requires approximately 3 weeks of medical treatment.

The summary of the evidence of the above crime is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 258-2(1), 257(1)(the point of special injury), 369(1), and 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing special injury) of each Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed for the special injury crime against Nonindicted 2 and the crime of causing a special injury to Nonindicted 2, and the punishment between the crimes of causing a serious injury to Nonindicted 2)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Crimes of Special Bodily Injury to Victims Non-Indicted 1)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to 15 years;

2. Scope of recommendation types according to the sentencing criteria).

Type 1 (Assault): A special injury to a victim Nonindicted 1.

【Scope of Recommendation】

General Injury A. 4) Type 1 (General Injury) (General Injury A. . 6 to 3 years) Special D.

【Special Convicted Persons】

Aggravations: In the event that a person commits a crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous objects, the motive for the serious injury or criticism;

Second Crime (Assault): A special injury to the victim Nonindicted 2

【Scope of Recommendation】

General Injury> Type 1 (General Injury) : Aggravationd Area (6-2 years)

【Special Convicted Persons】

Measures to mitigate: In cases where punishment is not imposed (including serious efforts to recover damage) or considerable damage is recovered from a damaged part; / In cases of committing a crime with a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles, the serious injury;

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: 1 to 4 years of imprisonment;

As two or more concurrent crimes, the upper limit of the range of punishment for the second crime shall be added to the upper limit of the range of punishment for the second crime (three years), and the lower limit shall comply with the statutory minimum of the statutory penalty for the special injury (one year of imprisonment).

3. Determination of sentence: Two years of imprisonment;

As seen earlier, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s respective arguments on unfair sentencing shall be determined as per Disposition on the same grounds.

The summary of each part of the facts charged is as stated in the above 2-B(1). This part of the facts charged is as stated in the above 2-B(3). As seen in the above 2-B(3), each of the charges should be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime as stated in the above 2-B(3). However, as long as the crime of special injury to the victim non-indicted 2 and the

Judges Lee Jin-tae(Presiding Judge) Doo-hun

1) At the original trial, one juror was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, three jurors were sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and three jurors were sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year.

2) The Defendant’s appeal is with merit, and the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendant should be reversed. The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendant is identical to the part of the charge against the victim Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 as to special injury to the victim Nonindicted 1. As such, even if it is not possible to accept the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquittal part of the reasons

3) Since the crime of special injury to the victim non-indicted 2 and the crime of special injury to the special property is an ordinary concurrent crime, the sentencing guidelines are not applied. However, to refer to the sentence decision, it is examined on the basis of the special injury crime against the victim non-indicted 1, who has a relation of special injury to the victim non-indicted 2, who is subject to punishment in excess of each of the above crimes.

4) The offense of special injury under Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act was newly established by the amendment of the Criminal Act by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016. As such, the sentencing guidelines was not set at the time of the instant indictment. Accordingly, the sentencing guidelines for the offense of special injury are applied from the case prosecuted after August 15, 2018 to the “02 habitually injury, repeated injury, special injury,” and the sentencing guidelines for “general injury of 01.0” are applied to the previous indictment cases. The same applies to the special injury crimes against the victim Nonindicted 2.