logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.01.16 2013노1176
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In the instant case, the Defendant asserted misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles merely left retail of the victim E, and did not have inflicted injury on the victim to the extent that it could interfere with the daily life of the victim by making the victim take the left part and use it on the floor, and even if the victim suffered injury, it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional injury on the part of the victim. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles are, namely, it is difficult to view that the statement of E/F present as a witness of the court below is false, because each of the statements made by E/F was clearly and spatially detailed and has not been experienced. The victim E made a false statement about the victim and the victim in this case from the police investigation to the court of the court of the court below, and the defendant made a verbal dispute between the victim and the defendant, and the defendant made a detailed statement about the victim's left part of the victim, and the witness F did not regard the defendant to be able to take off the victim. However, even though the victim's statement was in progress with the victim's statement that he left the scene of this case, it is deemed sufficient to have its credibility because the defendant did not find any particular inconsistency with the victim's statement by the statement that he left the scene of this case, the defendant was also the victim's left retail, and the victim's statement that he suffered treatment over the floor of the victim.

arrow