beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.12 2018노1369

상해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the defendant did not injure the victim by making a misunderstanding of facts (as to the injury of the defendant) by hand. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, ① the victim was injured by the Defendant during the process of vagabonds from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court’s trial.

In light of the following facts: (a) the statement consistently stated (the victim’s statement on the process of the occurrence of the wife is somewhat ambiguous; (b) the victim’s statement is either a part arising from the reduction of natural memory or that may cause mistake in memory; and (c) the victim’s credibility of the victim’s statement is difficult to be depreciated); (b) the Defendant also stated in the investigative agency to the effect that “the victim’s defect intending to break his glass and to break up his arms in the process of spreading the victim’s arms in the future (the page 84 pages of the evidence record); and (3) the images of each photograph (the evidence record 20 to 22 pages) taken on the site of the instant case and the victim’s body on the back of the instant case immediately after the instant case, the victim’s hand appears to have been shocked by glass or used in the part of the guard room on the face of the victim, as stated in the reasoning of the lower judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The conditions of sentencing do not change compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.