(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.10.24 2014노3071 | 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 2014.10.24 2014노3071

상해

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case without any injury to the victim was erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of one million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On June 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 17:40 on June 5, 2013, the facts charged in the instant case: (b) on the ground that the victim E (the aged 31) was an employee at the D cafeteria located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, a branch of the D cafeteria, and had a higher amount of height than the normal amount of skill ordered to customers; (c) thereby, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as a cage cage, etc., for which approximately three weeks of medical treatment is needed, by walking the victim’s mouth, and making it possible for the victim to walk his/her mouth and

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant was proven to have inflicted an injury on the victim based on the evidence indicated in the judgment.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1. The CCTV image of this case cannot be confirmed in the face where the defendant directly inflicts an injury on the victim.

However, the first two times from 17:41:31 to 13 seconds at the time of the instant case, the second was located in the CCTV blind spot from around 17:47 to about 5 seconds. However, in the first case, the first is that the victim first entered the blind zone, and the defendant who was in the opposite side of the kitchen entered the blind zone, and the victim took away goods from the top above his own height and re-enters them, and in the second case, the second is that the victim took away goods from the front line of his own height and the part of his arms. The second is that the defendant took the clothes in the blind zone and took them back with the sprink as he sawed goods.

The defendant receives the order of the customer in the first case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.01.31 2018고합574

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2021.04.19 2021고단433

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2019.08.23 2019고합81

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.17 2017노4262

-서울서부지방법원 2018.08.10 2018고정432