Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment of the lower judgment against the Defendants by the prosecutor (the fine of KRW 5,000,000, and the fine of KRW 3,000,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.
B. Defendant A (1) There is no fact that Defendant A had abused G on March 9, 201 and inflicted an injury on G.
(2) The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. According to Article 157 and Article 153 of the Criminal Act, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, if a person who committed an offense without accusation under Article 156 of the Criminal Act makes a confession or acceptance of a person before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted, and such confession prior to the final and conclusive judgment shall be stipulated as the grounds for necessary mitigation or exemption. Since there is no legal restriction as to the above confession procedures, the confessions made by the court or investigation agency as the defendant or suspect in the case shall be included in the concept of confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do831, Apr. 9, 2004). According to the records, the fact that the defendant A made a confession without accusation under Article 156 of the Criminal Act (Article 204Do831, Mar. 11, 2011). However, the lower court’s judgment on the aforementioned non-guilty case is acknowledged as having not been prosecuted as to the above case.
Therefore, the court below did not have the necessary reduction or exemption on Defendant A’s non-prosecution crime on the grounds of confession before the judgment became final and conclusive, and therefore, the part on Defendant A among the judgment below was no longer maintained.
However, the defendant A's above assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.