logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.12.05 2013노1780
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged on the part of the judgment below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, inasmuch as the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim in collaboration with C after the accident of this case occurred, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment. In addition, the Defendant was found guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that he was found guilty of this part of the charges for the above reasons, and that the Defendant was out of the site to receive a Ampha treatment, and that he did not leave the site without taking relief measures against the victim with intent to commit an escape and did not take any rescue measures against the victim. However, the judgment of the court below

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 6,000,000 imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to whether the defendant inflicted injury on the victim jointly with C, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: ① the victim, after the occurrence of the instant accident, was found to have been drunk by the investigation agency, at the police station, the defendant was able to take a bath, and the head part of the victim was 1 to 2 times with the right hand hand, and C, who was the passenger, was also at the time of drinking, when the victim's face was 2-3 times; ② the defendant again made a statement at the first investigation agency that he was s/she was satisfying about the head part of the victim; ② the defendant had no fact at the time of the victim (Article 2013DaDa4622, the investigation record No. 32, and the second trial date of the court below, but the victim and the victim were again stated in the appellate court to the effect that this part of the facts charged was found.

arrow