(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.05 2013노3450

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.05 2013노3450

상해

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the legal statement of misunderstanding of facts E is merely that the victim was removed from a duul, the lower court recognized the victim as assaulting the victim. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if the victim’s self-defense or legitimate act was committed, the Defendant was able to kill himself/herself.

Even if the victim dump, this constitutes self-defense or legitimate act because the victim was extremely minor in the very short time in response to the dump of the defendant's dump.

3) Even if the offense of assault against the Defendant is recognized, in light of the circumstance and present situation where the Defendant committed the instant crime, the sentence by the lower court against the Defendant (a fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable. (b) The prosecutor (a prosecutor’s statement by the lower court of mistake of facts as to the acquittal portion of the injury, even though the testimony by the lower court of mistake of facts is different from the contents of the previous written statement and is reversed without doubt, its credibility was entirely recognized, and the credibility of the previous written statement was rejected, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the remainder of this part of the charges rejecting other evidence, such as consistent statements by the victim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. Defendant 1 refers to the exercise of tangible force against a person’s body (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 1991) against the assertion of mistake of facts under Article 260 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 199). According to the witness E’s statement by the lower court witness E, the Defendant recognized that he had exercised his tangible force against the victim’s body by putting the victim’s breath, and at the time of the judgment of the witness at that time, the witness’s statement in this part was in the state of “the degree of breaking the victim’s body.” This part of the witness’s statement

참조조문

-형법 제260조

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.01.23 2013고정966

-부산지방법원 2014.10.21 2014노2686

-서울서부지방법원 2012.09.27 2012노772

-수원지방법원 2019.12.12 2019노4713

-대전지방법원 2013.02.07 2012노1024