logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
수원지방법원 2016.09.23 2016노2494
상해등
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A was aware of the fact that the injured party E was a part of the fact, it cannot be deemed that there was no intention of injury, Defendant A was not guilty of the facts charged against Defendant A, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of 5 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 3 million won) declared by the lower court against the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts in this part of the facts charged (1) from around 19:40 on July 9, 2015 to around 20:00 on the same day, Defendant A suffered damage to the victim E (32 years) who was living in the Mannam-si amendment area D, and caused disputes as to plastic cups, which were located in the F restaurant operated by the victim E (32 years of age). In order to see the dispute, Defendant C was suffering from suffering damage to the victim’s cocons with approximately four weeks in need of medical treatment.

(2) The lower court determined that Defendant A committed the above assault with the intent to inflict an injury on the part of Defendant A, such as recognizing and denying the result of the injury as indicated in the lower judgment, in light of the situation at the time of the instant case, witness and victims’ statement, and circumstances where the victim suffered an injury, etc., the lower court determined that Defendant A committed the above assault with the intent to inflict an injury on the part of the victim, by recognizing and permitting the result of the injury as indicated in the lower judgment.

The lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged on the ground of insufficient recognition.

(3) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in the lower judgment, namely, the Defendant A, while under the influence of alcohol, is highly likely to not be aware of the victim’s her being injured, and at the time.