The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the defendant misunderstanding of facts had had a balbbage of the victim, he had inflicted a bodily injury, such as the complete escape of the baby, by making the victim when he had balbaned with the balbane without the sea, and the harmful act B is unrelated to the defendant, the judgment of the court below which convicted him of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension

The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (limited to four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

"When two or more persons jointly commit a crime under paragraph (1)" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the requirement that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them, and that there is a case where several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity at the same place, and used it to commit a crime.

In addition, public offering in a co-offender relationship in which two or more persons jointly commit a crime is not required under the law, but is sufficient to communicate directly or indirectly with each other of the accomplices who intend to commit a crime with an explicit intent to commit a crime, and even if there is no direct evidence thereof, it can be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules.

In addition, the joint execution of a crime by conspiracy is not premised on the fulfillment of the elements of a crime by all accomplices. It is possible to cooperate with the accomplice who implements the act of realization to strengthen the decision on the act. Whether it falls under it should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation, intent to control the act, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623 Decided December 22, 2006, etc.).