logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.24 2017노1399
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding: (a) the Defendant misunderstanding that the Defendant was able to fish so that the Defendant did not want to see the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant’s finger was only flicking the victim’s fingers; and (c) the Defendant did not flick the victim’s fingers by drinking as indicated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim by drinking the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

1) The victim stated at the investigative agency that “the Defendant continued to drink from the Defendant and her parents without participating in a frighting and serious bath,” and stated in the court of the court below that “the Defendant continued to commit an act, such as drinking a part of the Defendant, and continuing to commit an act to her finger,” and stated in the court of the court below that “the victim made a concrete and natural statement as to the facts of the damage, the circumstance why the Defendant and the victim got to her drinking at the underground parking lot, and the fact that the victim assaulted the Defendant, against the assault by the Defendant.”

2) The Defendant, at an investigative agency, has a public fact about the victim’s threshold due to his/her finger.

At the time of statement, the fact of physical contact is recognized that the hand of the defendant is in contact with the victim.

3) According to CCTV images taken on the instant site, it is difficult to accurately ascertain whether the Defendant assaulted the victim on account of the quality, the distance of shooting, etc., but the Defendant and the victim enter the instant parking lot on the part of the Defendant and the victim. However, the vehicle is parked after the Defendant stops.

arrow