beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor, including the statement of the victim's investigative agency and the prosecutor's statement, the defendant C could have abused the victim G (hereinafter "victim"). However, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that this part of the facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of crime. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On August 12, 2012, at least 05:40 on August 12, 2012, Defendant C of this part of the facts charged, jointly with Defendant C of this part of the facts charged, was a trial expense for the reason that F and the victim interfered with the course of A in front of the seat and body of the member E of Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and A took the part of the victim’s face and body by drinking and launching, and the part of the victim’s face and body by drinking and drinking, and the part of the victim’s face and body by drinking and drinking, and the part of the victim’s body by drinking and drinking, and Defendant C took the part of the victim’s chest and body by drinking, and Defendant C took part of the victim’s chest and the part of the victim’s chest, which cannot be identified with Defendant C of this part of the facts charged. Accordingly, the Defendant assaulted the victim by jointly with Defendant A and B. 2). It appears that it conforms to this part of the facts charged.
However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the victim stated in the statement of witness by the police that Defendant C was satisfing his chest, but did not accurately interfere with this (Evidence No. 54 of the evidence record). However, in the court of the court below, Defendant C was not satfing his chest, but satisfing for the purpose of fighting rather than satisfing his chest.