logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.12.18 2015노569
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by C and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Although the lower court found the Defendant B of the Prosecutor guilty of the injury inflicted on the Defendant B, the lower court acquitted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake, the lower court determined that the Defendant B’s injury constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the injury. ① The witness C, I’s respective legal statements in the lower court, each police statement, accusation statement, CD (CCTV video) and diagnosis statement (I and the second police protocol on the Defendant B as evidence supporting this part of the facts charged, etc. As the second police interrogation protocol on the Defendant B, first of all, the police interrogation protocol on the Defendant B denies denies its contents in the lower court’s court’s trial, and thus, inadmissible evidence is inadmissible.

② Next, during the second and fourth trial of the lower court, C testified to the effect that Defendant B appeared to witness the victim I as described in this part of the facts charged, but on the other hand, around June 17, 2014, at the first police investigation, C stated to the effect that the police officer’s question whether or not the victim I was able to take place is “I was satisfy, and I was faced with the victim I am going forward later,” and it is difficult to believe C’s legal statement at the lower court as it is, since C’s investigative agency and the court below’s statement are inconsistent with each other.

③ 피해자 I은 경찰에서부터 피고인 B가 공소사실 기재와 같이 자신의 머리채를 잡고 발로 찼다는 취지로 진술하고 있으나, 한편 고소장에서는 피고인 B, A 및 C의 시비를 말리는 과정에서 피고인 B가 밀려 넘어지면서 피고인 B의 뒷머리와 피해자 I의 얼굴이 부딪혔다는...

arrow