logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.05 2018노3356
상해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of a misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the fact that the defendant had contacted the victim's body at the time of the instant case did not inflict an injury on the victim, and the above physical contact was conducted in the process of continuing to have the victim photographed the victim's body in video regardless of the defendant's detention, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

가. 이 사건 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2017. 8. 20. 15:40 경 안양시 동안구 B에 있는 C 교회 앞길에서 피해자 D( 여, 57세) 이 휴대 전화기로 다른 신도들의 모습을 촬영하는 것에 화가 나, “ 뭘 찍냐,

As the "Flaz", the victim's arms and chests were sealed in hand by hand, and the victim was injured by approximately 2 weeks of medical treatment, such as cage cage, tensions, etc.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented at the time.

(c)

1) In a criminal trial, recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s above conviction, it should be determined as a defendant’s interest even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable.

Supreme Court Decision 201Do231 Decided June 28, 2012, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012) comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, it is practically admitted as evidence that conforms to the facts of

arrow