(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.18 2015노7610 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.18 2015노7610

상해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, misunderstanding the facts, did not inflict an injury on the victim or damaged a vehicle by launching a motor vehicle, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated as to the assertion of fact: ① the victim has consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below to the effect that “the defendant was sleeped from the defendant at the place of crime, temporary location as indicated in the judgment, and the defendant was sleeped with the driver’s seat, due to the generation of the vehicle; ② G witnessing the situation of this case in the victim’s vehicle is also appearing in the same purport in the court of the court of the court of the court of the court; ③ Victim and G was specially innocent.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to find the circumstances to view, 4. The Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicts the injury on the victim and damaged the car as shown in the above injury diagnosis and repair estimate, taking into account the following facts: (a) the Defendant had access to the victim’s boom video by drinking, and after the Defendant was towed, it can be confirmed that the Defendant walked the Defendant, leading the Defendant to the left side of the victim’s vehicle; and (b) the victim submitted the injury diagnosis and the vehicle maintenance estimate, etc. on December 10, 2014, which is two days after the instant crime; and (c) the victim submitted the injury diagnosis and the vehicle maintenance estimate, etc. on December 10, 2014, which is the second day after the instant crime, correspond to the victim’s statement, and is close to the time of the crime. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.20 2016노1829

-인천지방법원 2015.12.18 2015노3229

-대전지방법원 2018.05.30 2017노3492

-춘천지방법원 2019.02.13 2018고단881

-서울서부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018노428