beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.15 2015노5021

폭행

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant, on the floor of his hand, only took her face at one time, and did not take two times by drinking it.

2) The Defendant was not aware of the victim E’s face or shouldered.

B. Legal principles 1) The Defendant’s act against the victim D was committed as an extension at the level of giving a warning to the Defendant’s act of d's act of d's act of d's act of wearing it, and constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the

2) The Defendant’s act against the victim E constitutes a justifiable act as a passive resistance committed while sustaining and avoiding it in a situation where the victims desire to and harming the Defendant.

(c)

Sentencing 1 Deliberation Punishment (1 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim D had the face of D on one occasion at the time from the investigative agency to the court of first instance; and (ii) had the face more than once at the time of the police's dispatch; and (iii) the victim E in the room and the victim E in the room had the desire for fighting and the victim E expressed her face at the time of the speecher’s desire for fighting; and (iv) the victim E expressed her face in drinking.

A relatively concrete and consistent statement; ② The victim E is different from the statement in the investigative agency in the first instance trial from that of the statement or memory.

However, the victim made a statement in accordance with D's statement and substitution about the background of the victim's assault, the part of the assault, etc., and ③ The defendant and the victims' fighting were found to have taken the face of a female by the defendant's hand.

A statement was made at the site of Hdo called at the time, and the defendant was at the price of D's face.

In full view of the statements made by the victims, it is consistent with the statements made by the victims.