(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.04.26 2017노1027 | 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) 광주지방법원 2017.04.26 2017노1027

특수상해등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of fact (a.e., special injury or injury) (a., Defendant 1) did not inflict an injury on the victim by taking the victim’s face back to the victim’s face, due to a spawn’s disease, which is a dangerous object around the time of 2014 A, or by hand around November 2014, the victim’s face was harming the victim.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The fact that the injured person at the time of the instant case was voluntarily visiting the Defendant’s vehicle

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see the fact that the Defendant was on board the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim was missing, the fact that the Defendant detained the victim on December 30, 2014 can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the witness J and M’s statement at each court’s trial on the Defendant’s assertion of factual misunderstanding, the following evidence: (i) the Defendant, around July 2014, in the area of Dogsan located in Gugsan-gun, caused the victim’s face to be hump when the victim’s face was humped on the grounds that the victim was not under the influence of alcohol; and (ii) the Defendant, around November 2014, requested the victim to pay money from “F Garan-ro” located in Mayang-si I, but the Defendant refused the request; (iii) the Defendant, “the same fump, No. Ma,” made the victim take the face of the victim by hand, “the victim was fumpted,” and “the victim continued to have his eye humd, humke, hump the victim’s eye,” and the victim’s humk, hump.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.02.09 2016고단1677

-서울북부지방법원 2014.01.16 2013고단2071

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2019.05.23 2019고단298

-광주지방법원 2017.10.26 2017고단2287

-청주지방법원 2019.05.17 2019고합13