logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.11.05 2020노526
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Since the victim of mistake of facts is in conflict with the defendant's interest, D's statement to the investigation agency and the court of the court below is not consistent, it is difficult to view that there is credibility in the victim's statement and D's statement, and E's direct witness witnessing the scene of the case stated that the defendant did not support the victim's vessel, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the victim's statement and D's statement alone committed an injury to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty by making the statements of the victim and D as the main evidence. Thus, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, i.e., ① the victim interfered with the meeting of the defendant, and consistently stated to the effect that the defendant was faced with the defendant and the defendant was faced with the defendant at that time, and ② the witness at that time and testified in the court to the effect that the victim's statement corresponds to the victim's statement (D also testified in the first call with the police (such as statement that the defendant was pushed down with the victim's body by hand, or that the defendant was pushed down with the defendant's body, not the defendant's body from the first call with the police). However, it seems that the victim's body was somewhat reliable, such as the victim's memory of the defendant's body that was faced with the defendant's body, but it was found that this was a blind or long time and that the defendant's memory did not reach the extent of rejecting the credibility of the statement due to such circumstances).

arrow