logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.26 2015노3415
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant only satnizes the victim's arms by breathing breath, and the victim's face is not taken by hand.

When the Defendant strokeed from the victim, the heart disease aggravated, and was faced with an emergency situation, and only the Defendant strokeed the victim's arms to escape from this.

There is no illegality of the defendant's act as a self-defense or an act of necessity to avoid the present danger.

2. If there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous in light of the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act regarding the grounds for appeal, or where it is clearly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted up to the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court shall respect the determination on the credibility of

(1) In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that recognized the credibility of the statement made by the victim, which corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, is insufficient and acceptable, and it is difficult to view that there are considerable and reasonable circumstances to recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine.

In addition, according to the evidence, it is difficult to evaluate the defendant's act as a self-defense or an emergency evacuation, and there is no error of law.

arrow