(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.12.20 2018노951

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.12.20 2018노951

과실치상

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) Defendant has a duty of care to keep the instant dog in its front part.

At the time, the Defendant cannot be seen as having been aware of the victim’s access to the instant opening, and the Defendant could not anticipate that the instant opening could threaten the victim. Therefore, there was a duty of care to prevent this.

In addition, there was no obligation to wear a dog in advance to the instant dog.

Rather, the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care as the host of the instant dog, such as wearing a shoulder at the time of the instant dog and cutting the shoulder.

Therefore, at the time of the instant case, there was no negligence on the part of the Defendant in managing the instant dog (hereinafter “Defendant 1’s assertion”) and the victim’s wife was extremely insignificant and thus naturally able to recover without any special treatment, such judgment shall not be assessed as “injury” as provided for in the crime of injury resulting from negligence under the Criminal Act (hereinafter “2 allegation”). Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 500,000) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant alleged that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal. However, the lower court acknowledged by such adopted evidence. However, the lower court held that: (a) the Defendant: (i) was aware of the following facts; (ii) the Defendant was behind the Defendant; and (iii) the Defendant was in the front of the Defendant’s person; and (b) the Defendant was in the front of the other Mari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri

참조조문

-형법

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.11.22 2017노2254

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.20 2019노4088

-대전지방법원 논산지원 2021.03.30 2020고단622

-대전지방법원논산지원 2020.12.01 2020고정64

-울산지방법원 2018.09.21 2017고정1280