logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.18 2019노1388
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not seem to have any satisfying of the victim's neck, or satisfying of the victim's neck, with a view to not towing the victim's neck, and as a satfying of the chest, the Defendant only satfying the victim's neck to remove the victim's satfy.

Even if the defendant was able to see or see the victim's timber and the chest side.

Even if this is an inevitable act to leave the victim who blicks in the defendant's house, sits in the defendant's house and takes sound, it constitutes self-defense against the person who refuses to leave the house, and in light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to recognize the defendant's intention of injury.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant by misunderstanding facts or understanding legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly erroneous, or there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is considerably unfair considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time the closing of argument in the appellate court is concluded, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2017Do7871, Mar. 29, 2018; 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 209).

arrow