logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.07.10 2019도5251
특수상해
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A person who has filed a statement of grounds for appeal may withdraw part of the grounds for appeal stated in the grounds for appeal on the court date, but if the grounds for appeal are withdrawn, it may be subject to a restriction that may not be deemed the grounds for appeal again. Thus, the withdrawal of the grounds for appeal

(3) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below’s determination on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal is justifiable. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of appeal, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the grounds of appeal.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles on the withdrawal of the grounds for appeal as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Defendant clearly withdrawn the claim of mental or physical disability among the grounds for appeal.

On the other hand, while the defendant cited in the grounds of appeal an incomplete hearing as to whether or not the defendant has a mental disability, the above ground of appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the withdrawal of the grounds of appeal or omitting judgment as to the grounds of appeal

(2) In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been in a state of mental or physical disability at the time of committing the instant crime. As such, the lower court’s revocation of the grounds for appeal or omission of judgment did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “hazardous goods” in the crime of special injury, but this is only asserted in the final appeal that the Defendant either deemed the grounds for appeal or was not subject to judgment ex officio.

arrow