beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and one year.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding the facts (as to the guilty part of the judgment below, Defendants 1 and 2) filed a civil petition against the Korea Electric Power Corporation, not N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”), and thereby, the victim K, a N-site warden, did not drinked.
Defendant
A does not threaten the victim or demand the victim to pay compensation, and Defendant B only met N's practitioners, but does not demand compensation.
Therefore, since the Defendants received the compensation for damage from the injured party properly, the crime of conflict is not established.
2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (defendant A: 2 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for August, community service 80 hours, Defendant B’s suspended sentence of imprisonment for a year, two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for a year, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below), among the facts charged, Defendant A’s respective official conflicts and attempted crimes against Defendant B’s victim F, G, H, I, and J can also be found guilty.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with the Defendants for changes in the indictment with respect to the Defendants’ joint attack against the victim K as “from December 2, 2012 to March 12, 2013”, and “I would find at the construction site of the steel tower” with “I would find at the construction site of the steel tower,” and this Court permitted this. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the above cannot be maintained as it is because the subject of the adjudication is changed.
B. As the lower court rendered a single sentence for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the facts constituting a crime in this part and the remaining facts constituting a crime which the lower court found guilty, the entire conviction part of the lower judgment cannot be maintained.