logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.04.14 2014노2337
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) The written diagnosis submitted by the victim is due to the wound suffered before the defendant is disputed, and there was no fact that the victim suffered an injury by satisfe, etc. by assaulting the defendant. 2) The defendant did not assault the victim.

3) The Defendant’s act was committed in a way to defend the Defendant’s breath from the victim, and the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act. B. The lower court’s punishment of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 500,000) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the record on the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court lack evidence to acknowledge that the injury suffered by the victim D was caused by the Defendant’s act by the investigation agency, legal statement, and medical certificate of injury of D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Based on the reasoning of the judgment, it is recognized that the court below acquitted the victim of the injury, which is the primary charge. According to this, the court below rejected the credibility of the medical certificate submitted by the victim. Thus, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below. 2) Meanwhile, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, since the defendant was found to have committed assault against D, it is recognized that the defendant committed assault against D.

3) In addition, in light of the motive, process, means and method of the instant crime, the result of damage, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s behavior and the degree of assault, etc., which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s act is not recognized as an act to defend against the current infringement of his or other person’s legal interests, or a legitimate act that does not contravene social rules. 4).

arrow