logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.06.22 2017노1927
모욕
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was unable to attend the conference room any longer after hearing the abusive language from the victims, making it difficult for the victims to attend the conference room, and the Defendant merely called “A-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

In addition, at the time, the place where the defendant took such a bath was about nine meters away from the victims, and the surrounding areas did not look at the victims.

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one million won in penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to factual misunderstanding, i.e., the victims stated to the effect that “At the time of the instant case, the victims consulted with the victims about the issue of surrender of the victim D, M, N Election Management Members (the head of the election management member (the head of the election management member) at the time of the instant case, and they expressed to the effect that “the victims came to a meeting with the victims, and they expressed their desire to “Chewing singing-outs” in return for the victims,” and ② The victims’ statements are consistent and concrete, as well as at the time, they attended the meeting as the chairperson

H’s statement is consistent with the contents of H’s statement, ③ Even if according to the legal statement of the witnessO present at the Defendant’s request by the Defendant at the trial, the Defendant was able to talk and talk with the victims and expressed in the meeting place, ④ the Defendant did not desire the victims, but the Defendant appears to have expressed that it appears to be the victim’s desire in light of the circumstances and the contents of the expression that the Defendant had taken such a desire. ⑤ Meanwhile, the Defendant did not take any bath at first.

On the other hand, the court below's decision.

arrow