(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.01.10 2017노2949 | 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) 광주지방법원 2018.01.10 2017노2949

폭행

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not assault the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In other words, the victim was at the time and place indicated in the facts charged by the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the defendant was at the time and place of the defendant's own blickness in consideration of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below

In light of the consistent statement, and the above statement of the injured party is consistent with CCTV images at the D convenience store in which this case occurred, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting the injured party as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the above argument by the injured party is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing is an initial criminal who has no criminal history.

However, considering the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is not good, that the defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial of the party, and that the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is not reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the "each legal statement of witness E and F" of the 2th 4th Myeon of the judgment of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error of "the witness E's legal statement of witness E", it is obvious that it is a clerical error of "the witness E's legal statement

참조조문

-형사소송규칙 제25조 제1항

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.07.19 2016노5003

-광주지방법원 2018.01.24 2017노3504

-대전지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노2877

-광주지방법원 2017.11.29 2017노1887

-광주지방법원 2017.06.14 2016노4157