logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.09.11 2014노1924
상해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the part not guilty in the original trial), although there is no causal relationship between the Defendant’s assault and the victim’s injury on the ground that the victim’s injury was considerably poor prior to the occurrence of the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, and thereby

2. Determination

A. On June 23, 2013, at around 03:45, the Defendant: (a) directed the victim C (Woo, 21 years old) who was going to the way of the Defendant’s daily operation on the alley 220-1 located in Macheon-si, Songcheon-do; (b) expressed that “I am and I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am am I am I am I am I am I am on the ground that the victim am "I am I am I am?" on the ground that the victim am I am I am I am you am you am you am I am I am I am you am I am I am I am I am I am I am you am you am I am you am I am you am I am you

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the victim C told D at the time two to three days have elapsed since the occurrence of the instant case with the victim’s first instance court: (b) the victim’s malicious scambling caused the victim’s sexual intercourse, and (c) the victim’s bad scambling that the victim’s sexual scambling was caused by the scambling of the victim before the occurrence of the instant case; (c) the victim issued a written diagnosis of injury after 12 days from the date of the instant case; and (d) the possibility that the scambling occurred due to other causes not the Defendant’s assault during the said period cannot be ruled out; (b) in light of the fact that the victim’s sexual scambling caused by the assault, such as the Defendant’s written facts charged, cannot be deemed to have been proven to have been beyond reasonable doubt.

arrow