beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A Punishment of a fine not exceeding KRW 500,000, Defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A merely prevented the victim from taking her hand toward the office door in an unreasonable manner while she was living together with his/her cell phone on his/her left hand, and did not have any other person’s body. Defendant A did not have any awareness that he/she was involved in the assault by another person at the time of the incident and did not use it, and thus is not recognized as co-ownership. Defendant A’s act and the injury of the victim did not have any causal relationship. Defendant A merely prevented the victim from taking advantage of his/her own Da and his/her locking system. Defendant C merely prevented the victim from taking advantage of his/her own Da and his/her locking system. When the victim was sealed by Defendant A, the victim was a light photograph of his/her office, and the front floor of his/her office is beyond the victim’s own force, and thus, Defendant C was put up with Defendant C.
As such, Defendant C also exceeded the victim’s status, Defendant C did not have any fact that Defendant C did not take the rear side of the victim’s timber, and did not harming the victim.
Defendant
C did not have any awareness that he was involved in the assault of another person at the time of the incident, and the common nature is not recognized because he did not use it while recognizing the assault of another person.
Defendant
C's act and injury of the victim have no causal relationship.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A’s fine of KRW 500,00,000 and the Defendant C’s fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendants jointly committed assault and injury to the victim.
Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
(1) CCTVs at the site of the case.