logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.06.20 2014노921
응급의료에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the penalty imposed by the court below on the defendant (a fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

The defendant withdrawn misunderstanding of facts during the first trial.

2. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant recognized the crime of this case; the defendant found the emergency room of the hospital of this case due to a difficulty in respiratory while under the influence of alcohol caused the crime of this case to not take first aid by the oxygen, and some of the circumstances are exempted from consideration; the defendant was the first offender; although there are favorable circumstances such as the defendant's use of force in the emergency room, the crime of this case is not appropriate in light of the form of the crime; the defendant's use of force in the emergency room; the medical treatment interfere time is not short; the defendant's punishment is applied at the hospital of this case; the punishment of this case is more than 30 million won; the statutory punishment of the crime of this case is more than 30 million won; the court below's punishment is deemed to have been imposed after fully considering the above circumstances favorable to the defendant; there is no change in special circumstances or circumstances that can be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the court below; the defendant's character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime of this case; and the circumstances after the crime of this case.

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

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Destruction. Damage” in the second sentence of the original judgment is apparent that it is a clerical error in the “Destruction and Damage”, and such ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.

arrow