beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.07.04 2018노57

상해등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On November 2013, 2013, in relation to a mistake of fact, the victim forced the Defendant to leave the right hand hand over at an investigative agency.

The statement "the victim stated", on December 13, 2013, at the hospital on December 13, 2013, the victim took the artificial coloning, salvating, salvating, and fixed salvating in the body of the side of the right side, and the victim took the son while taking the right hand hand over at the court of the court below as to the reason why the victim salvating down on the right hand hand.

The Defendant India’s investigative agency stated that “at the time the Victim was plucking, plucking, and the victim was open to the public.”

In full view of the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The lower court: (a) made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged at the investigative agency; (b) made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged at the investigative agency; but (c) made a statement in this

In full view of the circumstances such as the denial of most of the statements made by the investigative agency, and ② C’s statement that the upper part on the right side side of the Defendant’s injury is not related to the Defendant’s act, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim as in this part of the facts charged.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, which are ① the victim, while proceeding for divorce with the Defendant, around May 2017, the instant facts charged (as of the date of complaint).