logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.03.30 2017노34
폭행등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the offense of insult, the Defendant: (a) misunderstanding of facts only took a bath to the victim C inside the taxi; (b) without recognizing the public performance or recognizing the performance; and (c) in relation to the crime of assault, spits are debrising the victim D’s flaps. However, it does not constitute a crime of assault.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of fact 1) Public performance in the offense of insult refers to a situation in which an unspecified or multiple persons can be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do49, Apr. 10, 1984). In general, the following circumstances, namely, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① the victim C stated in this court that “it was possible for a student who had been at the time of the Defendant’s desire to take care of because the taxi door was opened,” and ② the witness D also stated in this court that “the Defendant would take a bath against the taxi engineer when the taxi door was opened at the time.”

In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the sound inside the gate was so sound that it could be seen outside the gate, the witness F made a statement to the same effect in this court to support the victim C’s statement, and the Defendant appears to have directly opened the cab door, and the Defendant appears to have been aware that he could hear it by the gate when he was able to take a bath. In light of all the circumstances, the Defendant’s taking a bath while opening the cab door was a situation where an unspecified or large number of people could recognize it.

as such, there was a public performance.

and the defendant could have known this public performance.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that this part of facts is erroneous is without merit.

2) We examine the crime of assault, and the judgment of the court below.

arrow