beta
Text
[Defendant A] The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s appeal ground 1) Defendant A’s punishment (the 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and the 2 months of suspended sentence: imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court (the 2 years of suspended sentence in the 7 months of imprisonment with prison labor) was too unreasonable. 2) The lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant A inflicted an injury on the victim I. However, according to the lawful evidence revealed in the instant case, it is sufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant A inflicted an injury on the victim I. b)’s punishment of the lower court in Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act is too unreasonable.
B. The court below's reasons for appeal by Defendant B (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Before determining ex officio on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A and the prosecutor, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against the above Defendant A, this court tried by combining two appeals against the above Defendant with one another. The crimes of each case deliberated in the trial at the trial are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A cannot be exempted from all reversal.
However, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding of facts against the defendant A is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction.
3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant A
A. On August 16, 201, Defendant A, at around 21:40 on August 16, 201, said that Defendant A, while discussing the issue of victim I (Nam, 58 years of age) and spawn in the south-gu Jin-dong, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, would make the victim's face 3, 4 times as drinking, and then go out of the restaurant, he would go back again.