logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.07.19 2019노367
강도상해등
Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Public prosecutor: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant: Error of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, misunderstanding of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not have any drug containing psychotropic drugs, tlym, and tlym, on a beverage in which the victims had finished. Even if the Defendant administered the above drug to the victims, it cannot be said that the victims had suffered injury because the victims were naturally recovered without any specific treatment. 2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part. The lower court rejected all of the above arguments in detail with the Defendant’s assertion and judgment. In addition, the lower court’s judgment is closely examined by comparing the evidence and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court. In full view of the following circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant caused other victims to go away from the victim’s drinking water, as stated in the facts of the crime in the lower judgment, and the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misunderstanding the fact or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s assertion. In so doing, the lower court contained a female’s panty part in a women’s panty room located in Seo-gu, Incheon AOEk-do.

arrow