logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.10.10 2019노60
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the CCTV reading room, the Defendant did not have assaulted the victim, such as flapsing.

B. In light of the legal principles, although the Defendant requested the head of the apartment management office K to peruse the election commission’s minutes, etc., he did not have access to the above documents. On the day of the instant case, the above documents were placed on the official book of the management office, and the above documents were perused by the occupant representative room in the management office, and returned them to K on the following day, and there was no intention or intention of unlawful acquisition to steal the above documents, and the Defendant’s act was not unlawful as a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

2. Determination

A. Considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court from the perspective of the trial-oriented principle on the assertion of mistake of facts, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the judgment of the first instance court on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance unless there are exceptional cases deemed significantly unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance court on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court also asserted that the victim’s statement was identical to the “a summary of evidence” under the “a summary of evidence,” and that there seems to be any circumstance to be any other than a false statement on the victim’s photograph immediately after the crime was committed, in view of the fact that the Defendant and the CCTV showed a threat to the victim in the management office immediately after the crime was inspected by G police.

arrow