logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.01.19 2017노1347
특수협박
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. 항소 이유의 요지 피해자 F은 피고인이 먼저 망치를 들어 올려 피해자에게 겁을 주었고, 뒤이어 A이 피고인으로부터 망치를 빼앗아 피해자에게 던질 것처럼 위협하였으며, 유리로 된 깨 통 뚜껑을 들었다 놨다 하였다고

The defendant and A's behavior are consistently stated.

In addition, the contents of the recording file and recording book which recorded the situation at the time of the case, and the contents of the recording book between the victim and the victim are supported by the statement of the victim.

Furthermore, the defendant's injury was the first half of this case, and according to the I's legal statement, I had observed this case from the beginning that he had already been aware of the third person's verbal dispute after the third person's verbal dispute had already occurred.

It is difficult to see it.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, even though the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that he had threatened the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be made even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

Comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances that the court below rendered by analyzing the contents of the statement and the attitude of the statement after legitimately adopting the evidence and directly hearing the statement of the witness at the court of original instance, and analyzing the contents of the statement and the attitude of the statement, as determined by the presiding judge of the court of original instance, the possibility that even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is comprehensive, the defendant was able to take a bath with F, and did not have any dispute with F, and that he was able to stay in the conduct of her husband A who took a bath with a view to her.

arrow