logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.10.11 2019노13
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant was unable to commit the instant crime in a state of mental disorder after hearing the right to the recovery of the victim who suffered from mental illness, such as tidal illness for a long time.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant had been hospitalized and treated from around 2005 to her early stage due to the injury and illness, etc., and complained of symptoms such as her cryp, etc. (Evidence No. 30, No. 23 of the record of the trial record). The defendant is acknowledged as the fact that he heard the victim’s speech that he was not the J, and was not the J himself while committing the crime (Evidence No. 16 of the record of the evidence).

However, on the other hand, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence legitimately adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the defendant was receiving medical care and living a daily life at the time of the crime of this case, ② the defendant stated that “I will give compensation to the victim. I would like to go to do so. I will do so.” (Evidence No. 16 pages) and ③ the defendant was investigated by the police station and was investigated by the police station on a bus for about two years, ③ the defendant was actually under investigation by the police station, and the defendant was actually subject to investigation by the police station around 2016, and was subject to a disposition that he was not authorized to institute a prosecution by concluding an agreement with the victim (see, e.g., evidence No. 38 through 40 of the evidence record). The defendant stated that “I think that this is no longer possible again on two occasions thereafter (Evidence No. 25).” Furthermore, the Enforcement Rule of the Welfare Act No. 684, Jun. 28, 2019>

arrow