beta
Text
Defendant
B Appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B’s first-class punishment (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, and three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the public prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the law, and misunderstanding of sentencing) (1) fact, the background leading up to the Defendants’ finding in the office where the Defendants were the victims, and the Defendants’ actions, the Defendants participated in or admitted the Defendants’ assault.
It is reasonable to view it.
(2) The first instance-oriented sentence against the illegal Defendants (two years of suspended sentence in Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and two years of suspended sentence in Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for the foregoing period) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the first instance court on the prosecutor’s mistake and misapprehension of the law is based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and the Defendants, at the time, assaulted the victim J jointly with H, etc.
Considering that it is insufficient to view it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Defendants found the Defendants not guilty of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) against J.
The following circumstances revealed in evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court. In other words, although the Defendants found the victim's office with H to receive money from F, the Defendants confirmed that there was no F in the office at the time, and found F's location, and the employees were unable to leave the office, H was given a her her bump from the ward. However, while the above office was separated from the room and room, the Defendant was not at the time of H itself.
Defendant B asserted that, although Defendant B was in the ward as the same person, she was asserting that she was unable to take out of the J and its employees for 43 hours following the 21:00 of the following day, H would end up to the end of the 21:00, while Defendant B was claiming that she was in the ward, and during that period, she would end up the J.