The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

The sentence of sentence against A shall be suspended.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A, as shown in the facts charged, the lower court acquitted Defendant A, by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact, although having inflicted an injury or at least assault on the victim F.

In addition, even if Defendant B was aware of the part of the victim H’s loss as stated in the facts charged, the lower court found Defendant B not guilty on the ground that Defendant B erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and thereby, Defendant B did not violate the social rules.

Judgment

Defendant

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor added Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and applied for permission to amend an indictment with the addition of the ancillary facts charged as set forth below in the following, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio. The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained, since the subject of the judgment is changed by this court's permission.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

검사의 항소이유에 관한 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들, 특히 CCTV 녹화영상(수사기록 75면)에 의하면, 피고인 A이 F을 향하여 윽박지르고 F을 사무실에서 내보내기 위하여 어깨 등을 세차게 밀어낸 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 단순히 흥분한 F을 말리던 중 사회상규상 용인되는 범위 내에서 밀어낸 것으로는 보이지 않는다.

Therefore, according to the above evidence, it can be recognized that Defendant A abused F.

However, in light of the above CCTV video image, there is no credibility in the written diagnosis of injury as decided by the court below, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, thereby causing injury to Defendant AF.