(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.01.21 2015노2571 | 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) 대전지방법원 2016.01.21 2015노2571

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles) is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s vehicle of the Defendant’s driving is a dangerous object that could cause physical harm to the victim under the social common sense, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant committed a so-called “refined drive” on the ground that the victim’s driver’s vehicle at the time of the instant case was damaged; (b) took the front part of the damaged vehicle by towing the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle; and (c) the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle was a large model with a weight of at least 1.5t in the state of definite; and (d) was shocked to the degree that the victim’s driver’s vehicle at the time of the instant case was profined. However, the lower court

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the facts charged in this case, which the prosecutor had been tried at the trial of the court below and dismissed at the trial of the court below, shall be deemed to be "special assault" and the applicable provisions of the law shall be amended to "Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act", and the facts charged in this case shall be deemed to be "violation of Road Traffic Act" and "Article 156 and Article 48 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" shall be deemed to be "Article 156 and Article 48 (1) of the Road Traffic Act," and the provisions of the applicable law shall be deemed to be "a conjunctive charges" as stated below, and the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained as they were changed by permitting this.

However, the prosecutor's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts that are not contrary to such a ground for revocation of authority is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of such ground.

Therefore, we examine the prosecutor’s aforementioned factual misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles as seen earlier by changing the claim, and based on the facts charged modified in the trial.

[Preliminary facts charged] The driver of any motor vehicle shall be the steering system and brakes of the motor vehicle, and they shall be the same.

참조조문

-형법 제260조 제1항

-형법 제261조

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017노1503

-부산지방법원 2021.02.04 2020노2408

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2017.02.15 2016노403

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2018.10.24 2018노130

-춘천지방법원 2016.06.02 2015노230