logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.02.18 2015노5089
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
Text

All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

B, C, and D shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, Defendant B and D.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Defendant A), the fact that Defendant A participated in the crime by taking part in the body of the victim R, which was written on the ground floor by multiple force as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, is sufficiently recognized.

Although the lower court determined that the Defendant did not directly take part in the act that the Defendant did not directly take part in the act, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the meaning of “Da”.

Although the facts charged of this case can be found guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts) was merely a fighting match and did not take part in an act of violence.

(c)

Defendant

C and D (unfair sentencing) The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment for each of Defendant C and D) is too unreasonable.

2. Before making a judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor applied for changes in the name of the crime to “special injury” under Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” under the applicable law, “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” and “Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” and the judgment below was no longer maintained since the court permitted the changes in the subject of the judgment.

However, the prosecutor's and Defendant B's assertion of misunderstanding the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the existence of the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged lies in the main point of “P” located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, around March 14, 2015.

arrow