beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.07.15 2016노161

상해등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fact misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles did not assault or inflict an injury on a victim, and even if so, there was such fact.

Even if this constitutes a legitimate defense to oppose the illegal arrest of the victim in the act of committing an offense, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles also argued the same purport in the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion by giving a detailed statement in the column of "decision on the defendant's assertion". In light of the records, the court below's judgment is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The degree of injury suffered by the police officer in charge of the instant crime appears to be relatively insignificant, and the degree of interference with the performance of official duties does not seem to exist. The Defendant and the police officer in charge of the instant crime appears to have committed the instant crime on the ground that the Defendant did not wear a safety bell, and the Defendant had no record of being punished for interference with the performance of official duties prior to the occurrence of the crime, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case committed by the defendant on the ground that he did not wear a safety bell, and caused the injury to the police officer in need of three weeks of medical treatment by cutting the arms of the damaged police officer.