logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.28 2016노3320
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

The main point of the grounds for appeal (definites) victim F (hereinafter referred to as “victim”), witness G, and H were the same remarks as to the main contents of the damage. “The victim suffered bodily injury due to a fighting with the Defendants in the course of seeking to recover his/her cell phone.”

The mere fact that the intention to issue the written injury diagnosis is the victim's wife is the victim's wife cannot be viewed as false.

The facts charged should be proved by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined in the lower court on the grounds that the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged, the lower court’s determination that the sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to ensure that the Defendants committed a crime of injury as stated in the facts charged.

① The circumstances at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, which the Defendants, victims, and most of the witness of the lower court were commonly aware, are as follows.

During the meetings related to the dismissal of the former representative in the MP office, the victim was able to take a photograph of the opposing residents who were out of the office of the MP office, and the meeting was taken out of the outside.

As the defendants demanded to delete and resist the photographs, the victims went to the apartment management office by disregarding them.

The case occurred between the victims and the defendants following the victim in the apartment management office.

There are more opposing residents in the opposite position.

It seems that they did not seem to have shown their status.

In relation to the defendants' acquisition of the victim's cell phone used by the victim, and whether the victim collected the documents inside the management office or the cell phone located in another place, what speech is, and the defendants' cell phone is the victim's cell phone.

arrow