logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노2079
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) Defendant did not assault the victim at the time of the instant case.

In light of the fact that the defendant, the female and the victim were in dispute over inheritance, and that it is common that no door was opened when they have visited, etc., it is difficult for the victim to believe the victim's statement. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the court below to recognize the fact of assault by the defendant based on the victim's statement.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, i.e., the victim, from the police to the court below, caused the Defendant’s breath by breath and hand.

In view of the consistent statement (Evidence 28 pages, Court Records 57 pages), ② the upper part of the body taken immediately after the instant case (Evidence 51 pages), the victim’s statement appears to be above the upper part of the victim’s statement. This conforms to the victim’s statement, ③ the Defendant’s police, and the Defendant’s “I see how”.

The question of the investigator " "," and the "batoned hand of bat bat bat bat bat bat bat bats"

In light of the fact that the defendant appears to have made a statement to the effect that he was closely involved in the victim (40 pages of evidence records), etc., the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he assaulted the victim as stated in the decision of the court below. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, however, the judgment of the court below is to add “1. Some police interrogation records against the Defendant,” and correction of the judgment of the court below on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal was made ex officio between the third and fourth acts under Article 25(1)

arrow