2018No1094 (a) Violence

(b) Injury;

1.2.A

2.(a) B

Defendants

Park Sang-sik (Public Prosecutor Acting for, indictmenting for, and holding a highest court);

Law Firm Assets (Defendant A) (Attorney Lee Jong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Attorney Yoon Woo (for the defendant B)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2754 Decided June 8, 2018

December 19, 2019

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Defendant A was only sealed Defendant B, who is one of his arms, and there was no fact that Defendant B’s face was taken by drinking, and his act did not cause an injury to Defendant B due to his own act, and Defendant B’s act of smuggling constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Punishments (fines 1,500,000) sentenced by the court below are too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Defendant B did not commit any assault against Defendant A. Even if he/she committed a assault against Defendant A, it constitutes self-defense as it was conducted in the process of defending Defendant A’s assault or preventing Defendant A’s escape.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Punishments (fines 1,00,000) sentenced by the court below are too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. The court below found Defendant A guilty of all the charges of this case on the ground that the Defendants’ act did not constitute legitimate self-defense or legitimate act in light of the following: (a) the court below acknowledged that Defendant B injured Defendant B and assaulted Defendant B as stated in each of the charges of this case by steam duly adopted and investigated by the court below; and (b) based on the circumstances before and after each of the crimes of this case; (c) the degree of injury inflicted on Defendant B; and (d) the degree of damage inflicted on Defendant A; and (e) the circumstances leading to the Defendants’ commission of each of the crimes, etc.

B. Meanwhile, Defendant A merely claims that the injury suffered by Defendant B is “infinite injury” and that the specific content of the injury or the name of injury is not specified, which is not specified in the facts charged.

형사소송법이 공소사실의 특정을 요구하는 취지는 피고인의 방어권 행사를 쉽게 해주기 위한 데에 있다고 할 것인데, 이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, 당초 피고인 A은 피고인 B이 수사기관에 제출한 상해진단서를 근거로 "피고인 A이 피고인 B에게 약 4주간의 치료가 필요한 '치아탈구, 하순찰과상' 등의 상해를 가하였다"는 공소사실로 기소되었는데 피고인 A은 원심 공판절차에서 위와 같은 피고인 B의 상해는 피고인 B의 기왕증으로 인한 것이라고 주장하면서 이를 다투었던 점, 이에 원심 공판절차에서 피고인 B에게 치아와 관련한 기왕증이 있었는지 여부가 심리되었는데 그 과정에서 피고인 B이 치아와 관련하여 이 사건 이전부터 계속하여 치료를 받아온 사실이 확인되었고 피고인 B의 상해와 관련한 감정촉탁 시 피고인 B의 기왕증을 고려할 때 상해진단서의 치료예상 기간이 과다하게 산정되었고 치료기간은 2주 정도가 적정할 것으로 보인다는 감정결과가 제시된 점, 원심 증인 G은 원심법정에서 "당시 피고인 B이 피가 난다고 하면서 얼굴을 감쌌다. 나중에는 이빨이 나갔다고도 하였다"라고, 원심 증인 E은 원심법정에서 "당시 '사람을 치네'라는 소리가 나서 보니까 피고인 B이 피를 흘리고 있었다"라고 각 진술하였고 이후 검사는 원심의 마지막 공판기일에 구두로 약 4주간의 치료가 필요한 '치아탈구, 하순찰과상' 등의 상해"를 "치료 일수 미상의 입 부위 상해'로 변경하는 취지의 공소장변경신청을 하였으며 이에 피고인 A이 공소장변경신청에 동의하였던 점 등의 전체적인 과정을 고려해보면, 비록 피고인 A에 대한 공소사실에서 상해명 자체가 특정되어 있지는 않더라도 피고인 A으로서는 방어하여야 할 사항이 특정되어 있어 피고인 A이 방어권을 행사하는데 아무런 지장이 없다고 보이므로 피고인 A의 이 부분 주장도 받아들이지 않는다.

3. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing

There is no new special circumstance or change of circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment. In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to be too heavy beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion on unfair sentencing is rejected.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The judges of the presiding judge shall be reappointed;

Judges Kim Gin-jin

Judges Han branch-type