Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with labor of one year and eight months, and Defendant B.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below on the scope of the judgment below on the charge of assault against Defendant A among the facts charged against Defendant A, dismissed the prosecution, and convicted Defendant A of the remaining facts charged, and only Defendant A appealed against the guilty portion among the judgment below, the part on the dismissal of the public prosecutor and Defendant A, which did not appeal, became separate and finalized as it is
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the Defendants.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) A was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and Defendant A was in the state of mental disability. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, Defendant A’s assertion of mental disability is deemed to have been drinking alcohol at the time of the crime, but on the other hand, in light of the background, means, and Defendant A’s behavior before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that Defendant A lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime.
Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendants: (a) thrown the victim F head by throwing away a dangerous product, or by sponsing the victim F head by spons; and (b) Defendant A inflicted an injury by assaulting other victims G; (c) the Defendants also assaulted four police officers, who were trying to be arrested the Defendants as a flagrant offender at the site of the instant case, and committed an act of assaulting the Defendants, such as cage table and sprinkfs; and (d) the Defendants were highly liable for the relevant crime in light of the circumstances and details of the relevant crime; and (e) the victimized police officers are all of the Defendants.