beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) Each item of this case of this case of misunderstanding of facts, as Defendant C was out of the time when the victim was deprived of the victim, and due to each item, the victim was not in the location of the victim. As such, each item of this case does not constitute a dangerous object due to the lack of risk. In addition, as to the length of this case, the statement between Defendant C and the victim was different from the statement between Defendant C and the victim, and each item of this case was not specified. (2) At the time of the instant case, at the time of the instant case, Defendant B was in the course of drinking the victim A, etc., but it was difficult for Defendant B to predict that Defendant C had each item in the vicinity of the victim’s own wife and that it would be when
Therefore, Defendant B is liable for the sole offender of the crime of injury, but further, Defendant B is not liable for the co-principal of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapon, etc.).
B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to each item of the instant case, at the time of the instant crime, Defendant C was out of the time when the victim was killed, and due to each item, the victim was not in the location of the injury. As such, each item of the instant case does not constitute a dangerous object due to the lack of risk. 2) The Defendant was in the state of mental disorder at
3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The issue of whether a certain object constitutes “hazardous object” as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act with respect to Defendant B and C’s common assertion (the state where each item of this case is not a dangerous object) ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the object in light of social norms in a specific case.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256 Decided November 11, 2010). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine.