(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.09.04 2019노680 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.09.04 2019노680

업무방해등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant’s appeal 1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, there was no special assault against Victim E, and the Defendant did not display the victim E a drink or have frighten the victim E, and there was an error in the misapprehension of facts by misapprehending the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant of this case. 2) The sentence of the court below (the imprisonment of August, the suspension of execution of two years, the community service hours of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s reasoning for the appeal by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that, in full view of the following facts: (a) the victim E made a concrete and consistent statement at an investigative agency and the lower court’s court on the developments and attitudes of assault; (b) C at the time, at the time, was a victim E; (c) the Defendant testified that he was aware that he was a victim E; and (d) at the time, he testified that he was taking meals at the location of the restaurant located near the restaurant of this case; and (c) at the investigative agency, he stated that the Defendant would have made a speech to the victim E by enhancing the victim’s speech; and (d) the CCTV image inside the restaurant of the above restaurant of this case, at the entrance of the head of the restaurant of this case from 03:20:23 to 03:20:40, the Defendant tried to be convicted of the victim by taking account of the following factors:

B. The evidence of this part of the facts charged in this decision is that there are statements from E, C and F and CCTV video images.

However, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the record, i.e. CCTV video, can not be clearly confirmed by the defendant's intentional display of drinking or heating to E.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2019.05.22 2018고단1207

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.02 2016고정1464

-대전지방법원 2015.09.23 2015고단1514 (1)

-서울남부지방법원 2020.12.16 2020고단4068

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2019.01.09 2018고단1072