(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.11.06 2015노363

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.11.06 2015노363

상해등

Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (the misunderstanding of legal principle and the misunderstanding of facts) did not inflict any injury on the victim I as stated in the facts charged, and did not have any intention to inflict any injury.

In addition, the defendant did not assault the victim B as stated in the facts charged, and did not have the intention of assault.

Even if the facts charged are recognized, each act of the defendant constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

B. Defendant B (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) did not have assaulted a victim A as stated in the facts charged, and even if the fact of assault committed by a speaker is recognized, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms.

C. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the Defendant B not guilty, despite sufficient proof as to the assault against G among the facts charged against Defendant B, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The judgment of the court below against the Defendants of unfair sentencing (the suspension of sentence of a fine of KRW 700,000,000 and a fine of KRW 200,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in relation to Defendant A1’s injury, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the part of the chest wall that requires approximately two weeks of treatment on the part of the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, by pushing the victim I’s chest part of the chest and cutting it over by hand, and the victim’s intention is also recognized.

B. The Defendant: (a) heard from H the awareness of traffic accident, and went to the Ethical hospital; and (b) asserts that H had caused the instant crime to prevent the occurrence of the instant crime, i.e., going to the hospital as she escaped.

However, the Defendant runs away beyond simply blocking the passage of H.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2015.09.24 2015노763

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.27 2015노2358

-창원지방법원 2016.11.17 2016노2225

-서울서부지방법원 2020.07.23 2020노398

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2016.12.22 2016노140