logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.03.25 2012노1407
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

Although misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that “the use of iron” used by the Defendant in assaulting G is merely a cleaning tool, and the materials and materials do not constitute “hazardous objects” as provided by Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was drunk and was in a state of mental disability.

Considering the fact that the Defendant has agreed with the victim E, G, H, and the Defendant is the primary offender, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, social service, 100 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the nature of each of the instant crimes committed by the prosecutor (unfairness) is extremely poor, and the risk of recidivism by the Defendant, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Judgment

Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles includes all articles that can be widely used to inflict harm on the life and body of a person even if they are not a deadly weapon. As such, not only the articles made for the purpose of killing or destroying a human body but also the knife, knife, glass bottle, various tools, vehicles, etc. made for other purposes, such as chemical drugs or dead animals, but also the term “hazardous articles” in this Article if they are used to inflict harm on the human body and body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2812, Sept. 6, 2002). Whether a certain article constitutes “hazardous articles” is a specific case in light of social norms.

arrow