logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.18 2015노1258
상해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(M) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is an error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the facts charged.

around 03:45 on November 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) reported within the F cafeteria located in Sungsung-si E, that H and the victim G were sprinked and led out of the victim, and (b) led the victim to the restaurant, but the victim was sprinked into the restaurant, and then, (c) took the victim’s hand and bucks, etc. for treatment for about 21 days, following up to one stop of the face of the victim’s hand and bucks.

Based on the following circumstances admitted by the evidence, the lower court determined that there is insufficient proof to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged.

A victim made a statement that he/she had faceed three times from a person who is unaware of the investigative agency, and followed a telegraphic body due to his/her appearance, but there is no person who stated that he/she was a direct witness of the victim in addition to the victim.

At the time, the victim appears to have been in a state where he was unable to properly hold the body after he was fighting with H while under the influence of alcohol. Considering the above circumstances, the defendant seems to have more credibility in the defendant's statement that the victim was in excess of his own in the process of leaving the victim and H fighting outside the restaurant to speak the victim's fighting.

(1) The Defendant did not have any motive or reason to assault the victim first on the day of the instant case. It is easy to understand that the Defendant did not have any other person to take out the victim, even if there were a considerable number of customers in the restaurant at the time of the instant case.

arrow