logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.04.26 2013노667
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation added in the trial of the party.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 committed the instant crime under a state of mental disability due to Defendant 1’s peston work and excessive drinking, and ② the sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical disorder, although the Defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to the Defendant’s work at the time of committing the instant crime and excessive drinking, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, in light of the Defendant’s ordinary drinking volume, the process and process of committing the instant crime, the means and method, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after committing the instant crime.

3. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor cannot readily conclude the criminal records except for one-time family protective disposition, violence inclinations cannot be determined, and knife and possessed in the need for business. As such, the instant crime appears to have been committed in interest and contingent circumstances, 4 million won in the trial process of the lower court for the victim, 6.4 million won in the trial process of the lower court for the victim, 6.4 million won in the trial process of the lower court, and 6.4 million won in depth after and against the instant crime.

However, the defendant takes a desire at a convenience store to the owner of the business, and the victim of the disturbance only tried to make the victim correct the situation. The defendant had the victim out of the convenience store and threatened the victim with a knife knife knife who was in possession of a knife knife with a knife knife that was in possession of a knife and knife with the victim to avoid it.

arrow