(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.05.23 2018노2943 | 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 2019.05.23 2018노2943

상해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, since it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of the defendant's injury by other causes, such as the victim's spawn, etc., was not caused by the defendant's injury, but by other causes, such as the victim's spawnia

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. On April 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 21:35, on the ground that (b) the victim D (year 47) who was aged lower than the Defendant, who was known to the Pyeongtaek-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, took the part against the Defendant; (c) on the hand floor, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, who was in need of approximately two weeks of treatment on the part of the victim, for approximately three to four occasions.

3. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it may be recognized that the defendant committed an assault by means of taking three to four times bucks of the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below. However, there is room to regard the injury of the victim due to the spathn of the victim, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the defendant suffered an injury to the victim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Nevertheless, the court below found guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

1 The victim suffered from urology, chronic urology, etc. even at ordinary level, and in 2015.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.07.18 2019노384

-대구지방법원 2013.09.26 2012노4004

-창원지방법원 2020.02.18 2019노237

-의정부지방법원 2020.12.03 2019노726

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2012.11.22 2012고정408