(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.01.27 2015노1037 | 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) 광주지방법원 2016.01.27 2015노1037

상해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a dispute between the defendant and the victim, the court below found the defendant guilty despite the fact that the defendant had not inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court held that each of the statements made by the victim at the investigative agency and the lower court in light of the following: (a) the victim made a concrete and consistent statement between the investigative agency and the lower court; and (b) the victim made a statement unfavorable to himself/herself while harming the Defendant in the process of the instant case; and (c) the victim made a statement unfavorable to himself/herself in the investigative agency and the lower court; and (d) the victim was

Even in accordance with the above evidence, the victim was aware of the fact that the victim was cageed and was engaged in cryp operations.

As such, the above circumstance alone determined that the probative value of the above evidence was not affected by the facts stated in the original judgment.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the reasoning of the court below, the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, i.e., the victim at the time of using the victim at approximately four weeks of treatment as stated in the facts charged in this case, and thus, the defendant's allegation above is without merit.

① On December 15, 2013, five (5) days after the occurrence of the instant case, the victim was diagnosed with G Hospital with a scarcity in which approximately two weeks of treatment is required, and on the written diagnosis of the injury, the victim stated that “the father and the scarcity of the annual installments system by scarbing” is stated as “the father and the scarbing blood.”

(2) On December 27, 2013, the victim was diagnosed by around 4 weeks at HH hospitals to the third left-hand body in need of approximately 4 weeks of treatment.

(3) The injured party shall be the victim at the court of the original instance, and the chest is low.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.07.06 2016노2442

-의정부지방법원 2016.01.08 2015노1958

-인천지방법원 2017.04.19 2016노4911

-인천지방법원 2015.01.30 2014노3803

-수원지방법원 2015.09.23 2015노1424