logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.06.18 2019노2690
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (definitely negligent) is that the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim with salted or tensions of the bones of neck. 2) The Defendant is merely a certain degree of inconvenience in daily life, and thus cannot be deemed as an injury as referred to in the crime of injury.

3. Since the victim has already expressed his/her intent not to punish a person in an investigative agency, it is limited to cases where the victim cannot institute a public prosecution on the part of violence.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, which found the Defendant guilty of the instant injury.

2. Determination

A. The written injury diagnosis submitted by the victim in the crime of injury by relevant legal doctrine is not sufficient as evidence to directly prove the fact that the injury as stated in the judgment below was caused by the Defendant’s criminal act after the doctor grasped the cause of the injury on the basis of the victim’s statement and stated the part and degree of the injury observed and judged by using medical expertise. However, if the date and time of the diagnosis as to the injury is close to the time and the time of the occurrence of the injury, there are no circumstances to doubt the credibility in the process of the issuance of the written injury diagnosis, and there is no special circumstance where the victim’s injury part and degree coincides with the cause and circumstance of the injury alleged by the victim, and unless there are special circumstances, such as the victim’s act of violence from a third party or the fact that the doctor prepared a false diagnosis report, the injury diagnosis report is serious evidence of the injury of the Defendant along with the victim’s statement, and its probative value cannot be rejected without reasonable grounds.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12728, Jan. 27, 2011). (B)

Based on the above legal principles as to the instant case, the instant case is considered.

arrow