logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.04.09 2014노1707
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
Text

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. We affirm the judgment of the court below that the defendants' act of violence against the victim J does not constitute an act of assault with dangerous articles.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint crimes under Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, inasmuch as the Defendants jointly committed violence against the victimJ, upon examining the series of collective fighting between the Defendants and the victims as a whole.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B (the imprisonment of two years and six months, the suspension of execution of four years in prison, the community service work 240 hours in prison) on Defendant B is too uneased and unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The lower court determined that: (a) there was no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B conspireds with J or jointly processed the violence against Defendant B; (b) all of the victims of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) against Defendant B were acquitted on the charge of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.), and (c) the other victims of the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.).

C. The time when the victim J was launched with carrying a pipe and the victim J was found to have been after the defendant A was drinking his face. The defendant A's assault against the victim J cannot be punished as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the assault against the defendant A was committed while carrying a deadly weapon, and only the crime of assault can be established. After the victim J acknowledged the fact that he expressed his intention not to be punished against the defendant A prior to the prosecution of this case, this part of the prosecution against the defendant A was dismissed.

arrow