beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
The sentence of sentence against A shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (Defendant A1) did not mislead the Defendant of the fact that he saw D’s gales, or saw E’s gales.
2) The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, committed a assault against D and E, with the power of d’s mouth or e’s fat, thereby constituting a legitimate defense.
B. Defendant B did not contain any injury or injury to Defendant D.
2. Determination
A. Determination on Defendant A’s assertion 1) According to each of the testimonys D and E by the witness D and E of the lower court, each of the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant satisfyed with D’s satisfy, and e’s b
2) In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was carried out with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against one another’s attack, and the victim’s act was committed against it, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate defense, since the perpetrator’s act has the nature of both the defensive act and the act of attack at the same time (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200).
B. According to each of the statements of the witness D and E of the court below's decision as to the defendant B's assertion, the fact that the defendant injured the defendant D is sufficiently recognized.
(c)
Defendant
A An ex officio determination on the sentencing of A) The appellate court may ex officio render an adjudication on the grounds that have affected the judgment, even where the grounds for appeal are not included in the appellate brief (Article 364(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Meanwhile, the grounds for appeal include “when there exist grounds to recognize that the amount of punishment is unfair,” and thus, the appellate court may ex officio decide whether there exist grounds to recognize that the sentencing is unfair in the first instance judgment.