logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.06.03 2015노72
상해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Doing up to misunderstanding of facts C, the head of C was faced with the iron bars, and the head of C did not assault C with the hump pipe.

B. The Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense to defend C’s assault.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 2,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence list, which forms part of the first trial record of the court below's judgment prior to the judgment on the ground for appeal ex officio, the court below did not state all the defendant's opinion on the evidence, and it is unclear whether the court below adopted the above evidence as evidence had undergone the examination of evidence under Articles 312 and 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and did not make a decision on the simplified trial procedure differently. The court below is bound to have found the defendant guilty on the above part of the charges on the basis of the evidence presented without legitimate examination of evidence other than the defendant's statement through ordinary procedure. Thus, the court below erred by violating the provisions of Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the statements in the trial of the party branch of C, the facts that the defendant, while gambling with C, was refused even though he had followed C, who lost his money. The defendant was able to take the face of C by drinking, and the defendant was able to take back the hack pipe, which was next to C in order to oppose it, twice by taking out the hack pipe, which was next to C.

arrow