(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.15 2018노801 | 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) 인천지방법원 2018.06.15 2018노801

특수상해

Text

The judgment below

The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

The judgment below

As to the part other than the confiscated part.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s punishment (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of suspended sentence in August, and two years of community service order, confiscation, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) In full view of the fact-misunderstanding (the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court below) that the injured party made a specific and consistent statement at an investigative agency about the background and details of the damage, and the fact that there is a medical certificate of injury corresponding thereto and an emergency room, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by putting the head of the victim in a dangerous tin-

2) The above sentence committed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had taken the victim’s head with an empty tin box, which is a dangerous object, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The above judgment of the court below is just in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the reasoning of the court below.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion that the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment is without merit.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment ex officio, pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, confiscated tin-openers (No. 1) who was seized by the victim, sentenced the forfeiture of the tin-openers (No. 1).

As seen earlier, it is not recognized that the Defendant was found to have taken the head of the victim with an empty tin box seized. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is not recognized that the Defendant attempted to inflict an injury on the victim by using the above tin box. As such, the seized tin box is stipulated in Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

참조조문

-형법 제48조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2019.10.11 2019노242

-춘천지방법원 2018.09.17 2017고단1020

-서울동부지방법원 2018.11.23 2018노1207

-의정부지방법원 2017.06.16 2017노483

-전주지방법원 2018.04.11 2018고단362