(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.02 2017노1550 | 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) 서울고등법원 2017.11.02 2017노1550

아동학대범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(아동학대치사)

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the fact constitutes a cruel act regardless of the victim J’s malmarcing of the bomb, but there is no causal relation between the above malmar and the victim’

Since then, the defendant's act of checking the victim was a process of leading the victim, and the defendant's act of taking the victim back up to the back of his head was not distinguished from ordinary flight equipment play, and the defendant's act of taking the victim up to the back of his head is so strong and rapid that the following is practically impossible.

In light of the pressure of on-site inspection, chilling atmosphere, personal weight (less than 1kg) used for the reproduction of on-site verification, the body weight of the victim, etc., the on-site verification image is inaccurate.

The defendant could not have predicted that he could feel suffering.

As above, the following acts do not constitute abuse against the victim, and dolusent intent is difficult to recognize such act.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, stated the legal doctrine on the Defendant’s child abuse and the criminal intent of abuse. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s act; (b) the Defendant’s appearance of the act; (c) the Defendant’s prior experience in transfer; (d) the Defendant’s absence of safety devices; and (c) the Defendant’s pressure and shocking due to double life and economic difficulties at the time of committing the crime; and (d) the Defendant’s pressure and shocking of the victim; and (c) the Defendant’s attacking the victim; (d) the Defendant’s series of acts of causing the victim to shock; and (e) the Defendant’s act of causing the victim’s injury to the victim was a child abuse; and (e) the Defendant had the intention of her child abuse.

The decision was determined.

In the field inspection attempt, the number of persons who are engaged in the job inspection.

유사 판례

-수원지법 2017. 5. 11. 선고 2016고합664 판결

-수원지방법원 2017.11.03 2017노6209

-전주지방법원 2013.10.11 2013노765

-대구지방법원 2018.12.20 2018노2706

-대전고등법원 (청주) 2017.11.02 2017노94