logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.21 2017노7523
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant only confirmed that the victim spawns the arms of the victim who spawn own arms, and that the victim was not driving a drunk, making the part of the victim spawn and spawn the face, and did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The Defendant merely made a passive resistance to the victim himself/herself, which constitutes a justifiable act under the Criminal Act.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, namely, ① the victim consistently since the investigation agency and the lower court up to the trial, and consistently ruled that the Defendant’s vehicle was cut off by driving on the one-way road.

However, after deducting from the difference of money, the defendant tried to get back from the difference of money and resisted the defendant from the difference of money.

The defendant flabed his flabage and flabed his own timber.

“Specific statement on the damage situations”, and ② was in operation after the taxi of the victim at the time.

D also, in the investigative agency and the court of the court below, ‘the defendant deducteds the difference from the difference, thereby putting the victim knife, so the victim knife his arms, so the victim's knife knife, and the defendant tried to less the part of the victim.

The defendant unilaterally made the victim.

“In line with the victim’s statement, the victim made a statement consistent with the victim’s statement, and all the Defendant and the victim do not seem to have any circumstance to make a false statement against the Defendant, and ③ the victim immediately after the instant case’s 112.

arrow