(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.20 2015노7098 | 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) 수원지방법원 2016.07.20 2015노7098

상해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who is misunderstanding of facts, is punished with the victim and the trial expenses, is only the fact that he saw the breath, and there was no injury to the victim as shown in the facts charged, nor did he throw the cell phone of the victim and damaged it by cutting the victim’s cell phone.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the facts charged of this case guilty. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, whether the victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, “the Defendant was suffering from the aging of the Defendant on March 7, 2015” to the Defendant.

“A defect,” which stated to the effect that “the victim’s cell phone was damaged, such as the victim’s left shoulder and tension, which requires medical treatment for about 21 days by cutting the victim’s breath by drinking the ebbage, the victim’s fat, etc., and the victim’s cell phone was damaged by the victim’s cell phone, and the victim’s cell phone was damaged by being damaged by the victim’s cell phone on the floor.” The victim was diagnosed as “the 21-day eblor, the eblor and tension, the eblor, the eblor, the eblor and tension” on the same day. In full view of the above diagnosis letter and the degree and degree of the injury inflicted on the victim’s ebloric photo, the victim’s cell phone ebrat and efrat, etc., and the victim’s cell phone ebrat, the victim’s injury can be recognized as the victim’s property.

Therefore, the lower court’s decision that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2017.05.10 2017고단412

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.05.14 2017고정465

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.06.15 2018고정121

-부산지방법원 2019.10.18 2019고단3839

-춘천지방법원 속초지원 2016.01.27 2015고정102