(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.10.15 2019노329

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) 서울남부지방법원 2020.10.15 2019노329

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)

Text

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. fine of 500,000.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant I (misunderstanding of facts against the judgment of the court of first instance) only told H, and there was no assault by the victim, such as saluting the victim.

B. Defendant A1) The first instance court’s judgment (the fact-finding) did not have any fact that the Defendant 1 carried a breath of the victim’s breath. (2) The Defendant 2 was populated by many people in the lower judgment (the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) and carried a breath in order to catch the center of the Defendant while punishing the breath, but there was no brupting or booming the head of the victim, but it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment (the 300,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant A were rendered, and each of the above defendants filed an appeal against them. The court decided to hold the above two appeals together with the two appeals cases.

Defendant

The first and second original judgments with respect to A are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the first and second original judgments with respect to Defendant A cannot be maintained as they are.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against Defendant A with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court. Therefore, Defendant I’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts against Defendant I with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance that

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts against the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants also asserted the same facts in the court below. The court below, after the summary of the evidence of the judgment below, stated detailed reasons as indicated in the judgment, jointly with H.

참조조문

-형법 제38조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.08.14 2013노1613

-서울고등법원 2011.12.22 2011노1330

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.29 2019노3627

-부산지방법원 2020.04.16 2019노3118

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.10 2018노1062