logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.21 2017노2086
무고
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of a crime of false accusation, inasmuch as the Defendant did not have committed the crime of false accusation, since the Defendant had a false accusation against M in the previous criminal case, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. In light of the various circumstances of the instant case, the sentence of the lower judgment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the lower court and the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion on this part of the facts charged cannot be accepted.

① Since the facts established in a criminal judgment which became final and conclusive on the same factual basis are material evidence, it is difficult to employ a criminal trial judgment, as it is difficult to do so.

Unless there are special circumstances acknowledged, the facts contrary thereto cannot be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11349, Dec. 24, 2009). ② In the instant case against the Defendant, the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Godan5231, “The Defendant, in collusion with P, N, Q, and on February 22, 2013, in collusion with the Defendant “W” located on the first floor of Gangnam-gu V, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 1studio 1studio, which is a dangerous object in the knife, glass, glass cup, beer, etc., the Defendant was deprived of the victim’s knife at the victim’s head, and the victim’s knife at the victim’s end, flife the victim’s hand, and flife the victim’s head for 28 days.

“The Defendant is found guilty of the facts indicated above, and the above judgment was finalized on September 25, 2014 through the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9954) and the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do954) (hereinafter referred to as “the final judgment”).

arrow