2020No397 (Separation) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement)

1. D;

2. E:

3. G.

Defendants and Prosecutor

He/she shall hold a public trial, such as leaping, leaping, autroning, a leaping, and aculing

Law Firm Maman (for defendant D and G)

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Attorney Lee Jon-hun (for Defendant E)

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Gohap263, 2018Gohap264, 2019Gohap274 decided May 28, 2020

September 24, 2020

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (e.g., misappropriation)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) An inspection;

The sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties

The Defendants, the chairperson of the company C, who is one of their employees, suspected of the victim W and his wife V, committed the crime of this case from around 2017 when the defendants were investigated upon the victim's complaint, asserting that they committed violence against AO only when the victim was committed on the sole basis of the crime of this case from around 2017 when the crime of this case was committed by the victim, and that the defendants used the victim to commit the crime of this case to the C's office for 2 hours and 10 minutes in consideration of the circumstances and contents of the crime of this case. The crime of this case was committed by the defendants since 2017 when the crime of this case was committed by the victim's complaint, and they denied their participation in the appellate court by asserting that they committed violence against the victim, and that the victim did not receive the victim's punishment or did not complete the victim's damage. The defendants still made efforts to avoid the crime of this case to the extent that they did not complete the damage.

Meanwhile, there are favorable circumstances for the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants led C to commit the instant crime, the fact that there was no criminal history other than the fine force to the Defendants, and the fact that there was family members to support the Defendants.

Defendant D and E deposited KRW 17 million for each of the deposited victims on July 7, 2020 before the above decision became final and conclusive, and Defendant D and E deposited KRW 5 million for each of the following reasons: (a) while raising an objection against the above decision on July 13, 2020, the above court rendered a judgment on July 3, 2020 to the effect that “Defendant D and E shall pay KRW 12 million for compensation for mitigation of punishment to the victim within 10 days from the day following the date of this decision; and (b) before the above decision became final and conclusive, Defendant D and E deposited KRW 17 million for compensation as the deposited victims; (c) however, Defendant G shared with the above decision on July 13, 2020; (d) it is difficult for the above court to render the judgment on August 20, 2020 to the effect that the above decision was modified to the extent that the change in the amount of punishment was made to the extent of KRW 30548,290 and damages for delay in civil procedure.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances and various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as seen earlier, the lower court’s sentence to the Defendants goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion and cannot be deemed unreasonable or unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s allegation of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendants and the prosecutor is dismissed as all are without merit.

Judges Noh Superintendent of the Supreme Court

Judges in the appellate course

Judges Cho Jae-il