logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2013.10.11 2013노845
폭행
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant had committed an assault against the victims in light of the victim E's statement that the defendant had a head debt of the victim C, had a head debt with the victim D, had difficulty in putting them head debt with each other, and the victim's statement that drinking water was faced with the victim E's bucks, etc., the defendant was found to have committed an assault against the victims, and the defendant's act of assaulting the victims cannot be deemed as a justifiable act, and the judgment below which acquitted the victims of the facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. On June 24, 2012, around 07:50 on June 24, 2012, the summary of the facts charged by the victim C, D, and E, on the ground that the defendant, who was sitting in the front table, was under the influence of alcohol at G main points located in F in Y, was able to take a bath to the victim D, and the victim C was able to take a part of the defendant's body once again, and the victim D was able to take the face of the defendant's body, and the victim E was able to take part in the defendant's bridge because he was under the influence of alcohol.

As above, the Defendant committed violence against the victims by putting the head debt of the victim C, putting the head debt of the victim D, pointing the head debt of the victim D, breaking the face face several times, taking the part of the victim E into hand hand, making the part of the victim E one hand, and taking the face of the victim E one hand in hand.

B. The lower court stated that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court: (a) the victim C stated that “I tried to confirm whether the person was a woman or not,” and the victim D went back to the Defendant,” stating that “C was a child or not,” and the victim D expressed that “C was a child or not,” and the Defendant expressed a desire. (b)

arrow