logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.07.19 2018노1225
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, is merely a plucking or plucking up the fingers of the victim to defend the victim, and thus, it is a legitimate defense.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that, even if the Defendant was to make a statement at the time of the police investigation, the Defendant’s act of plplaling or plaling the fingers was committed by responding to the Defendant’s desire to “which would be the same,” and that the Defendant was plaled, plaled, or plaled by the victim in the state of booming with his arms and fighting, and that the victim attempted to boom his arms while fighting together. Furthermore, considering the fact that the Defendant himself was well-known by himself, the Defendant was trying to attack against the victim while fighting, and that it was difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of plaling or plaling the fingers was attributable to the defense intent.

2) We agree with the circumstances in the court below's reasoning, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim argued that the damages were plucked and plucked within the toilet (see evidence record 40 pages), and the witness F of the court below also stated to the effect that "the victim saw the victim's damages from the toilet and the police were plicked, and the victim's damages were already frighted at the time (see 52 pages of the court records)." Thus, it is reasonable to view that the victim's damages were inside the toilet, and (ii) the victim's damages were plucked and plucked.

arrow