본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
인천지방법원 2019.01.18 2018노2784

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.


1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding the facts, the Defendant had rootsd water to the victim, but there is no fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim when he saw the trees.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where the appellate court, in the course of the trial, tried to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after its ex post facto and ex post facto determination, the first instance court’s decision was clearly erroneous in the determination of the evidence of the first instance.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). There is no objective reason that may affect the formation of a new conviction in the trial, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that maintaining the judgment of the lower court is remarkably unfair in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the content of the reasoning of the lower court.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the lower court, and in full view of the factors revealed in the instant pleadings, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.