logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.11.10 2020노1428
특수상해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months;

2. The sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable in light of the following factors: although the method of judgment is not good and the degree of damage is not light, it is against the defendant, the defendant is not previous and agreed with the victim at the time of the trial, the motive and circumstance of the crime, the character and conduct of the defendant, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case such as the defendant's character and environment.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following decision is rendered again.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, a prosecutor’s appeal shall be dismissed. (3) In light of the above legal principles, a prosecutor’s appeal shall be dismissed. (4) In light of the above legal principles, a prosecutor’s appeal shall be dismissed. (4) In light of the above legal principles, a prosecutor’s appeal shall be dismissed. (4)

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr.

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (Consideration grounds, etc. for mitigation);

1. Article 32 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings of Dismissal of Application for Compensation (the scope of liability for compensation is not clear, since an application for compensation was filed after the closure of pleadings in the trial at the

arrow