logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.09.27 2013노1426
존속상해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the statements made by the investigative agency of the victim of mistake of facts and the court below in the court below, the records prepared by him, each injury diagnosis report to the victim and the Medical Insurance Corporation, the details of the hospital treatment on the day of the case, etc., each of the facts charged of this case can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty on the part of the injury sustained on May 3, 2010, and that the injury sustained on October 12, 2012 sustained as of October 12, 2012 is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant injured his father, who is the victim of an unreasonable sentencing, and denies the crime without breaking errors, the punishment by the court below (three million won of fine) is too weak.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rendered a judgment on the charge of injury sustained by the Defendant on May 3, 2010, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence at the time of the occurrence of the case: (i) the circumstance in which the victim filed a complaint against the Defendant at the time two years have elapsed from the date of the occurrence of the case, i.e., the medical records of the hospital that received medical treatment at the time of the instant case did not contain any special provision regarding the cause of injury; (ii) the victim’s statement at the time of the crime falls short of consistency; and (iii) the victim’s motive to make a false statement was peep; and (iv) the victim’s statement at the police, the prosecution, and the lower court’s court’s trial, the written diagnosis of injury, and the copy

In addition, the lower court did not change the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the court on October 12, 2012, i.e., the Defendant’s breathing of the victim’s breath.

arrow