logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.08.11 2015노437
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
Text

The judgment below

The part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group deadly weapon, etc.) is all.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant (as to the guilty part of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) 1) misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles 1 , in light of the circumstances such as the location of the victims at the time of the shouldering and the situation before and after the shouldering, the victim's injury's part and degree, diagnosis and prescription, etc., it cannot be deemed that the victims suffered injury as to this part of the facts charged, or that the above injury was caused by the defendant's act. Further, the glass of the above witness was a strengthened glass, which is different from the general glass, and even if the victim was left at the end, it could not be predicted that the glass of the present witness could have been caused by the victims' injury. Thus, there was no intention to inflict injury on the defendant.

The judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2) The sentence of two-year suspended sentence of one year and six-year imprisonment sentenced by the court below which was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor regarding the acquitted portion among the charges of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a misunderstanding of facts) in which the Defendant conspired with E, thereby recognizing that the victim K and L suffered bodily injury due to its glass distribution in collusion with E, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) With respect to interference with the business, a claim for the construction price shall be made between D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

arrow