logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2014.12.24 2014노239
상해
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the Defendant’s mistake, the Defendant did not depict the victim’s breath.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unreasonable in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument of the appellate court, unless there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is remarkably unfair solely on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the victim’s e.g., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, which are the following: (a) from the investigative agency to the court below, the victim had consistently been aware of the victim’s e.g., the Defendant’s e., as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, at the time of the lower court to the court.

arrow