logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.16 2018노434
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is merely aware of the victim’s flapsing, and thus, even if the intent of assault can be recognized, the Defendant cannot be recognized as the intentional act of assault.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one million won per each 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the written statement (Evidence No. 64,65 pages) that “the Defendant himself/herself recognized the fact that he/she saw the victim’s fat, and the victim himself/herself recognized the fact that he/she saw the victim’s fat,” and that “the Defendant fated and pusheded his/her bather bat, carried his/her bather fat, carried his/her bat, and led the victim to his/her bat,” etc., the victim submitted the victim’s photograph (Evidence No. 664,65 pages). In full view of the victim’s photograph (Evidence No. 64,65 pages), it can be recognized that the Defendant was injured by the victim’s assault, such as fating his/her fat, etc., and in light of the parts and degree of the injury recognized through the victim’s statement and photograph, etc., at least the

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the degree of injury suffered by the victim is relatively minor due to the instant crime, etc. of determining the illegality of sentencing.

However, even though the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime in the past several times, it is recognized that the Defendant committed the same crime during the period of repeated crime, and that the Defendant did not agree with the victim, and the lower court has determined the punishment by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the above sentencing. If the sentencing conditions are not changed compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). This is the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health condition, etc.

arrow