(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.04 2014노3764 | 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 2015.06.04 2014노3764

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복협박등)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts [2014Gohap355] The defendant did not have threatened the victim on the first day of the decision of the court below, and did not have the purpose of retaliation at the time. The second day of the decision of the court below did not inflict injury on the victim, but did not aim at retaliation.

[2014Gohap387] The Defendant did not commit an indecent act in the part of the facts constituting the crime at the time and place of the lower judgment, while the Defendant had contacted the victim’s humf in the process of having the victim humf by leaving the view at the place.

[2014Gohap388] The Defendant did not commit an indecent act by not committing an indecent act, such as taking the victim’s chest at the time and place of the lower judgment, but did not intend to commit an indecent act.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts [2014 Gohap355]

In regard to this, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the following grounds: (a) the victim's statement is consistent and specific; (b) the date and time set by the court below's decision No. 2; (c) the images recorded in the on-site CCTV CDs recorded in the first time and on-site CCTV as indicated in the judgment of the court below; and (d) the part and degree of injury inflicted upon the victim, consistent with the victim's statement; (b) at the time, the defendant demanded the victim to agree after being investigated under the suspicion of indecent act by force against the victim; (c) the defendant was rejected by the victim; and (d) the defendant's oral and act was sufficiently recognized as threatening the victim and threatening the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the victim; and (e) the defendant's allegation on this part of the charges.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.12.08 2016노2709

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2021.01.13 2020노211

-광주고등법원 (제주) 2017.07.19 2017노20

-서울고등법원 2017.03.09 2016노2914

-서울고등법원 2016.08.25 2016노1743