(a) The elements of a crime of injury or assault under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

B. Whether the victim’s abusive theory was written, or the victim’s house’s gate was written as a matter of course a assault (negative)

A. "When two or more persons jointly commit the crime of injury or assault" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them. In addition, if several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity and commit the crime using it at the same place, it shall not be deemed that the defendant committed the crime of violation of the above Act in cooperation with the defendant.

B. The term “Assault” under Article 260 of the Criminal Act refers to the exercise of force against a person’s body. As such, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant naturally committed an assault with the victim’s her hummatic intent only, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s humping of the hums of the victim’s house does not necessarily constitute a case where the victim’s hum

(a)Article 260(a) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 and Article 257 of the Criminal Act; Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do119 decided Jun. 10, 1986 (Gong1986, 894) 90Do2022 decided Oct. 30, 1990 (Gong1990, 2488) 89Do1406 decided Feb. 13, 1990 (Gong190, 701)

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 90No1412 delivered on August 22, 1990

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, at around 09:00 on January 18, 1987, the defendant, in collaboration with the non-indicted, expressed his house gate to the victim 1, and expressed the victim 2, who was the wife of the victim 1, and expressed the victim 1, "this opening", and in this case, the non-indicted 2 committed an assault against the above victim by taking advantage of her bat, and applied Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act.

2. However, it is difficult to recognize that the Nonindicted Party committed the assault jointly with the Defendant even based on the evidence of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court.

In addition, Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that "When two or more persons jointly commit a crime of injury or assault" requires that there exists a so-called accomplice relationship among them, and that there are several persons in the same opportunity and commit a crime by recognizing and using another person's crime at the same place (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do119, Jun. 10, 1986). According to the records, it is deemed that both the police and the prosecutor's office have denied the above facts of assault (see Supreme Court Decision 16,49, Jun. 10, 1986). In the first instance court of the victim 1, there are no statements such as the victim's testimony or prosecutor's statement about the victim 1, and the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant and the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, as stated in Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, only the defendant and the non-indicted 2, who jointly committed a crime of violence, etc., are punished by the defendant.

3. In addition, the term “Assault” under Article 260 of the Criminal Act refers to the exercise of force against a person’s body, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant, as a matter of course, has committed an assault with only a breathous intent as stated in its reasoning, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant, as a matter of course, has committed an assault with the victim 2, and it does not constitute a case where he has exercised force against a person’s body.

If the court of first instance or the court below intends to recognize that the defendant committed assault against the victim 2 as well as the victim 1, it is necessary to indicate in detail the criminal facts how the defendant used the physical force of the victim 2 by taking the gate of the victim 1 house.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 2 (2) of the Violence and Punishment of Violences Act, or unless it is in violation of the rules of evidence, and it affected the judgment, and this part of the judgment is justified.

Therefore, without examining the remaining parts, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)