logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.06.15 2017노17
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not assault the victim, and the victim did self-harm.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's assertion, the defendant can fully recognize the facts of assaulting the victim as stated in the court below's decision.

In addition, in light of the above evidence, the victim injured himself.

It should not be visible.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. According to the records of the judgment on the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, the applicant for compensation filed an application for compensation with the Seoul Eastern District Court (Seoul Eastern District Court 2016 early 1176, December 22, 2016, which was immediately following the judgment of the court below, and the court below rendered a decision to dismiss the application on January 2, 2017. The applicant for compensation is recognized to have filed an application for compensation order again with the same purport as Seoul Eastern District Court 2017No. 17, Jan. 10, 2017. Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that the applicant cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation and cannot file the same application for compensation again, and Article 25(1) of the same Act limits crimes that may be committed, and the crime of assault, which is the crime of this case.

Therefore, the above application of the applicant for compensation is infinite law.

4. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation is unlawful. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench pursuant to Article 32(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

arrow