logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.10.31 2018노2384
무고
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time and place stated in the instant facts charged, suffered from a wound, such as a musta, etc., by suffering from a wound from C

A consistent assertion, and there was no significant physiological reaction even in the detection machine inspection.

C The actual defendant was not injured by C.

Even though it is impossible to readily conclude that the Defendant had never raised C;

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Although the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s conviction on the charges of this case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part of “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion

Considering the circumstances cited by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant reported false facts with the intent to have C punished criminal punishment.

The judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts.

subsection (b) of this section.

(1) The defendant sustained an injury from C at the police 10:0 am to 10:0 am.

was stated.

The Defendant reported the fact of damage to the police around 14:28, and at the time when the police called the scene, the Defendant was faced with the victim even after the police called the scene.

At least 4 hours and 30 minutes in case of a defendant's statement

It is difficult to believe that it is against the rule of experience (O, a member of 119 first aid service, also becomes a situation in which he or she did not flow over about 5 hours if he or she got her bloods over 119 hours from the telephone call with the police, such as when he or she was called.

“....”

arrow