beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.08.23 2018노479

폭행

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact that the defendant misunderstanding of fact made a dispute with the victim does not constitute a fact, a physical contact with the victim, or a threat to the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) On May 29, 2017, the summary of the public prosecutor's office was around 23:3 on May 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on his wife E (I, 43 years old); (b) on the family of the victim E (I, I, at around 43 years old), found him to have his children; and (c) on the part of the victim.

(d)"I see the horses, and take the consolation that I am see the victim's hand at a height of his hand while taking the bath, and assaulting the victim's left part by hand.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the victim’s legal statement and the victim’s side pictures, emergency measures reports, investigation reports, and other factors.

3) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and there was no error of misunderstanding of facts in its judgment.

(1) The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, has consistently stated in a concrete and alternative manner regarding the background leading up to the defendant's home, the contents of conversation exchanged with the defendant, the circumstances leading up to the use of the defendant's assault and force, and the circumstances reported to the police.

② The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that they did not consistently make a statement as to whether the victimized person cited drinking water at the time of assault. However, the victim’s statement at the court of original instance was made in the court of original instance for at least 11 months from May 29, 2017 in which the instant case occurred, and thus, the victim did so.