logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.07.03 2014노6110
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal, the statement of the victim E is consistent with the witness F's statement, H states that the victim suffered damage immediately after the crime of this case was committed, and the defendant also testified that the victim would have suffered the voice from the route, and according to the above evidence, etc., it is acknowledged that the defendant committed the bodily injury by making the victim joint with the victim C.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant even though he was guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's judgment and the court below's duly admitted and examined evidence, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant inflicted an injury on E in collaboration with C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

① E appears in the trial as a witness and stated in a relatively concrete manner the part of the assault and the method of assault, etc. as to C, while speaking to the effect that the Defendant was aware that he was a citizen as C, E did not specifically state the Defendant’s violent act separately from C’s violent act.

In addition, E made a statement that the Defendant had a big sound and that the heart was lower, and as E, there is a possibility that the Defendant was erroneous for the Defendant to have inflicted an injury jointly with C, and there is a possibility that he made an exaggeration in light of the relationship between E and the Defendant.

② The Defendant, a place in the instant case, 1313 apartment buildings and 13-dong street to E, but did not interfere with E by participating in C’s act.

arrow