logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.14 2016노934
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a situation where the victim E misunderstanding the fact that the victim gets a vision for the defendant and is pushing the defendant with the head of E, the crypian disease was in contact with the head of E due to the crypiane of the defendant under the influence of alcohol, and there was no fact that the defendant was in contact with the head of E.

Even if the defendant assaulted E as a beer’s disease,

Even if there is no special credit of E, and the diagnosis submitted by E also indicates that it is possible to recover medical treatment due to preserved stability, the wound suffered by E does not constitute injury to the crime of injury.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the prosecutor examined the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below in the appellate court after remanding the case, and the prosecutor applied the applicable law to "special injury" as "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 258-2 and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" as "Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act". Since the court's judgment was changed by permission, the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, even if the judgment of the court below has such reasons as above, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the appellate court as to the assertion of mistake of facts:

arrow