beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.05.17 2018노4512

특수상해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to defend the victim’s assault, the Defendant was only scam of scam scams (scams) and did not have any intention to inflict injury on the victim.

It cannot be deemed that the state suffered by the victim is unclear as to whether it was caused by the defendant's act, and that the degree of the damage has reached the "injury" under the law as a minor state capable of natural therapy.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court fully recognizes the Defendant’s act of breaking a bridge, etc. on the left side of the victim’s left bucks for about two weeks by taking into account the fact that the Defendant 2 week medical treatment is necessary. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The victim was investigated at the investigative agency twice through two times, and “the date of the case was returned to the house after the Defendant’s birth. The Defendant saw the victim’s male relations with the Defendant after she was frighted, and she saw it as a large fel. The victim fleded to a small room. However, the Defendant and felbed the large fel, and the Defendant felbbbbing the victim’s left side in the large felon. At the time of the buckbuck, the victim stated to the effect that “The date of the case was the same as the Defendant.” The statement about the details of the damage and the situation at the time is very concrete.

② The instant case occurred.