(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.03.12 2015노228 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.03.12 2015노228

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등협박)등

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to Defendant E’s attempted fraud, the lower court found Defendant E as guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s bridge was teared to the Plaintiff, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake of facts on the ground that the Defendant’s bridge was not hidden to the dog.

(2) In light of the fact that the matter is insignificant, the actual damage was not caused, and that the defendant is against the defendant, the court below’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s method or circumstance leading up to the Defendant’s crime is extremely close and the nature of the crime is extremely poor; (b) the Defendant’s argument consistent that the Defendant brought to the opening even though he was unable to find the parts of the water in question; and (c) the Defendant had a history of having been punished several times for the same crime, which led to the instant crime, the Defendant’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground of the evidence indicated in its holding.

(2) The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the defendant asserted that the victim E had a bridge, and argued that there was a hole in the defendant's bar. However, if the dog was carried out to the extent of a hole in the mouth, it remains even if the defendant's bridge was mixed on the defendant's bridge, but it did not remain in the body or trace of the defendant's bridge in appearance, and ② the defendant requested the victim E to show the defendant's wife while demanding medical expenses, and the defendant suggested that the victim would have been receiving medical treatment to the hospital, but the defendant was forced to take action against the defendant, such as refusing to take the bridge, etc., and the defendant was a person who was faced with the defendant's wife or suffered a wound.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.06.26 2017고정1263

-부산지방법원 2018.09.20 2018노2253

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.06.14 2018고단283

-춘천지방법원 영월지원 2019.06.04 2019고정5

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.02.05 2014고정691