(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.11.29 2013노2107 | 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 2013.11.29 2013노2107

상해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) lies in the sum of the victim’s sckes, but the victim did not suffer any injury identical to the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor deleted from the trial of the case, "the head was faced with the wall by breaking the body of the victim by hand, and breaking the wall" of Section 4 from among the facts charged in this case, and the defendant's 6 act stated "influences such as fluoral dums and tensions that require the victim's treatment for 14 days by hand" as "influence of the victim's fluor, the defendant applied for amendments to the bill of amendment to the bill of amendment to the indictment with the "influoral fluoral fluor, etc., which requires the victim's treatment for 14 days" as stated in Section 6 of the 6 act. Since this court changed the victim's target of the judgment by allowing it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the grounds for the above ex officio reversal.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The written injury diagnosis submitted by the victim in the crime of injury generally finds the cause of injury on the basis of the victim's statement, stating the part, degree, etc. of the injury observed and determined by the doctor by mobilization of medical professional knowledge, and it is insufficient to be a direct proof of the fact that the injury as stated was caused by the criminal act of the defendant. However, if the date and time of the diagnosis of the injury are close to the time and the time of the occurrence of the injury, there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility in the process of the issuance of the written injury, and if the part and degree of the injury as mentioned are consistent with the cause and circumstance of the injury claimed by the victim, then it is time

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.12.20 2012노3451

-창원지방법원 2014.05.28 2013노2308

-인천지방법원 2015.01.30 2014노4402

-전주지방법원 2016.11.25 2016고단1587

-수원지방법원 2016.10.21 2016노2976