(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.03 2018노3806 | 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) 인천지방법원 2019.05.03 2018노3806

특수상해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) During the misunderstanding of facts with the victim, the part of the victim's bucks was kept due to bucks against the bucks against the victim, and there was no bucks against the victim's head due to bucks against the bucks against the victim. Although the victim's head was merely the victim's self-harm, the court below found the defendant guilty of the part of the victim's head due to bucks against the victim's head, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which sentenced the decision of the court below on unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, suspension of execution of two years, community service hours, 160 hours).

B. In light of the misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal part of the reasons), the victim’s appearance is the body of the victim, the stones discovered at the site at the time, and the form of the bloodtain, which is located in the erobbbbbation, etc., the victim’s statement at the time of the Defendant’s erobbation could be sufficiently reliable, but the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged as to the part causing bodily injury due to the erobation of the erobation, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) In so doing, the sentence (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service)

2. Judgment on a mistake of fact

A. On April 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 07:30 of the facts charged in the instant case, at the Go-gu Mama farm operated by the victim C (the age of 68) in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon; (b) however, (c) the Defendant considered the Defendant’s cell phone to have a cell phone victim and demanded the return of the Defendant’s cell phone; (d) the victim’s face was hyshhnhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.01.07 2014고단4388

-인천지방법원 2018.10.31 2018고단5945

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2016.08.10 2016고단567

-부산지방법원 2018.04.27 2018고합55

-전주지방법원 2016.11.24 2016고합154