logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.11.30 2018노2224
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did not contact the victim’s body, although there was a fact that the Defendant got the victim to her son at the time of the instant case.

At the time of the instant case, the victim “hume up to bomb

Although “,” it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement by making a statement from an investigative agency to the court of the court below, even though the Defendant was not flicking, but flicking one’s own head.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the above argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by explaining the grounds for determination.

2) Although there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, when the appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first instance judgment and ex post facto determination, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, the appellate court should not reverse without any such exceptional circumstance (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017) the first instance judgment based on the foregoing legal doctrine, and there is no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial, and it does not seem that maintaining the lower court’s judgment is remarkably unfair when compared the evidence duly examined by the lower court with the content of the lower court.

4) This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the sentencing conditions are compared with the first instance court.

arrow