beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact-finding (the defendants) the Defendants continued to be in the vicinity of the groundwater pumps pipe box of Asan-si Jin-si, the instant site. On May 4, 201, the Daejeon District Court No. 1, from May 21, 201 to May 13:0, 201, on the day of the instant case, D did not have any fact that D was f or was pushed, and on the other hand, on the day of the instant case, F made a false testimony contrary to his memory, while F stated the fact that D was sealed, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The punishment (two million won of fine) of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant B) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The issue of the judgment on the mistake of facts (defendants) is whether D used a scambling to F by cutting off and pushing ahead F with F, and whether the Defendants were witnessed. Defendant B was the former husband of D with Defendant A at the site of the accident on the day of the accident. Defendant B, with Defendant A, was the former husband of D, who followed the case at the site of the accident. D, the L’s personal father, who was transferred the K CF building, owned by him through the scambling lawsuit, reported the defects in the work of replacing the pumps at the site of the instant groundwater and seems to have reached F in a very rough and rapid manner. G and H appears to have consistently followed F in light of the fact that the on-site witness and H appeared to have consistently developed the control tower, accompanied by the control tower, scambling the two arms of F, and the fact that the F medical certificate was injured, and that the above witness’s testimony was consistent with the above witness’s statements made on both sides and the witness’s statements cannot be accepted.
B. The judgment on the decision on the unfair sentencing (Defendant B) does not have any past history of punishment and there is no change of circumstances to be newly considered in the trial of the court below, even though it is deemed that there is no economic difficulty, and the above defendant is no change of circumstances to be newly considered in the trial.