logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.02.09 2016노1056
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The main points of the grounds for appeal are as follows: (a) the facts of injury to C by G and the facts of assault against the Defendant F are recognized; (b) whether the co-existence between the injury of C and the Defendant’s assault is recognized or not.

In judging the commonity of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault), even if the subjective requirements are satisfied, it should be judged mainly on whether the objective requirements are recognized rather than strictly required as a common principal offender under the Criminal Act.

It is evident that the assault and injury of the defendant C have occurred at the same place and time.

In addition, the defendant's act and C's act should be evaluated as an act conducted on the line with the first defendant's act due to the assault against F continuously due to the violence against F, so the co-existence between the defendant and C is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of co-ownership in the joint crime.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, on the following grounds, abused or injured the victims jointly with C for the following reasons.

The court determined that it could not be said.

1) "When two or more persons jointly commit the crime of violence" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that the two or more persons exist the so-called co-offender relationship, and that where several persons are aware of the crimes committed by other persons on the same opportunity at the same place, and used them to commit the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1642, Feb. 23, 1996). 2), with respect to this case, health stand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records are: (i) there was a dispute between the Defendant and the Victim F; (ii) the Defendant and the Victim F were at dispute between the Defendant and the Victim; and (iii) the Victim G and H were at the dispute between the Victim F and the Victim G.

arrow