logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2013.04.12 2013노12
강도상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the injury inflicted by the Defendant on the victim D is insignificant and does not constitute injury to the crime of robbery.

B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, injury in the crime of robbery refers to a change of a victim’s physical health condition to a poor condition, and a disability in his/her living function is caused. If the injured party’s wife is extremely minor and the injured party does not need treatment, and there is no difficulty in daily life and the injured party’s natural treatment can be naturally cured following the passage of the time, the injured party’s physical health condition was changed due to the change of the injured party’s physical condition.

It is difficult to see that there is an obstacle to the function of life or that there is an injury in the crime of robbery.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4437, Oct. 28, 2004). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, in order for the Defendant to take out the money of the aged victim, the Defendant suffered a hole widely inside both arms and entrings of the victim during the process. The left part of the part of the part of the part of the upper part of the Defendant left part was cut off and the part of the part of the upper part of the Defendant was cut off, and the Defendant was laid off. The police recommended the victim to take treatment at the hospital after checking the part of the victim’s injury after the crime, and the care of the victim’s wife was not required, and the victim refused the hospital. However, the victim stated that the hospital was not opened because he recommended the hospitalization in the police investigation. ③ The victim received the hospital’s medical examination and stated that the victim suffered a stability in the part of the hospital and the part of the front part of the hospital.

arrow