(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노1142

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노1142

폭행등

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A and the part on the crime Nos. 3 and 4 of the judgment of Defendant B shall be reversed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and Defendant B: Imprisonment for 6 months and imprisonment with prison labor for 3 and 4 years as indicated in the Decision) is too unfased and unreasonable.

A. (1) Defendant A did not assault G on April 24, 2014 and June 10, 2015 (the crime No. 1 in its holding); Defendant B did not threaten or interfere with G (the crime No. 2 in its holding); the Defendants did not instruct employees to use a deceptive scheme to interfere with the P cafeteria business; and the Defendants did not meet the requirements for the organization of the obstruction of business by force (the crime No. 3 and No. 4 in its holding), but the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the charges against the Defendants.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court: (a) Defendant A’s mistake of fact: (a) the victim G consistently made a consistent and consistent statement; (b) the witness witness of the instant case consistently made a statement of 1-A; and (c) the Defendant’s witness partially coincide with G and H’s statement at the time of the assault; and (b) there were parts that are somewhat exaggerated and unclear or unclear in detail the statement of G and H; (c) it appears to be natural phenomena attributable to the limitation of memory following the passage of time; (c) Defendant A was issued a summary order of KRW 50,000 by assault against G; and (b) Defendant A was issued a summary order of KRW 1-A of the instant case before and after each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant’s representative directors; and (b) Defendant A did not report the fact that the victim suffered damage late at the investigation agency; and (d) Defendant E and Defendant A did not report the fact that the victim made a statement at the latest at the time of the assault, and thus, Defendant B and Defendant E (hereinafter “E”).

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.26 2019노274

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015고정1365

-서울동부지방법원 2014.11.21 2014노313

-전주지방법원 2017.10.25.선고 2017고정271 판결

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2016.04.28 2015고정765