beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.07.14 2016노17

상해

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Defendant

A.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) In fact, or misunderstanding the legal doctrine, the Defendant only found the back head of the victim B when he was living together once, and did not inflict an injury by taking the victim’s face into drinking.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant, who is aware of the fact, did not see the victim’s face by drinking.

2) A party defense household defendant took the victim's face at a time.

Even if it is an act to defend A's unilateral assault, it is a legitimate defense.

3) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the lower judgment’s relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly examined by the lower court.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the court below is clearly unfair, or in full view of the results of the examination of evidence and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court may not reverse without permission the judgment of the court below on the first instance solely on the ground that the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the court below is different from the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012; 2010Do827, Oct. 14, 2010) and the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance, i.e., the victim B immediately after the crime of this case was conducted by the police station of the court of first instance to verify the blood transfusion of the witness of the court below, and the witness of H.