(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.05.23 2013노100

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) 서울남부지방법원 2013.05.23 2013노100

재물손괴등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The Defendant did not destroy and damage property by facing the victim’s taxi back from the cargo vehicle parked adjacent to the vehicle by launching the back of the taxi.

B. The Defendant did not inflict an injury upon the victim’s face by drinking the victim’s face or by quihing the victim’s hand.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the video of evidence No. 3 of the damage on property, it is recognized that there is no trace of damage on the back of the front left door of the instant taxi, and the part of the statement of the victim C in the original court of the lower court, “after the police called out, the taxi was moved forward to the front of 2 meters at the place where the police first stopped, and the defendant opened the front door of the taxi and opened the back of the taxi at that place, and the back door was stamped on the truck,” is recognized as a fact different from the video of evidence No. 3 in the original court of D, a police officer called at the time called out at that time.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, D is acknowledged as having the following facts: (a) the police officer reported from the victim that “the defendant sent the back of the taxi to the scene of the instant case after receiving a report that “the defendant was impulged by a vehicle parked in the back of the taxi; (b) the defendant arrived at the site and confirmed the reported details; (c) D is consistent with the reported status of the taxi; (d) the probability of facing the cargo parked in the vicinity at the time of opening the back of the taxi; (c) the patrol car and the instant taxi moved to the district police station; (d) the taxi was moved to the cab; (e) the CD image of the evidence No. 3 was taken; (e) there is a possibility that video information might disappear from the image stored by a video showing and a low sea level of video damage; and (e) there is a similar fact that each of the aforementioned images of the taxi and the evidence evidence attached to the 17th taxi is similar to each other.

As above, the CD images of the evidence No. 3 are the technical problem of the shooting media.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2013.01.07 2012고정3016

-서울북부지방법원 2013.01.31 2012고정3493

-부산지방법원 2013.04.12 2013고정223

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.06.13 2019고단1003

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.08 2013가단258725