logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.20 2018노686
특수폭행
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding the facts at the time of the instant case saw a threat from the victim’s daily behavior, and tried to defend this against it, she saw three soldiers in the drinking house as stated in the instant facts charged, and she saw two of them as having been on the floor before the victim’s daily activity, and she saw the remainder of 1 enlisted with the victim and her talked with the victim.

Therefore, it is difficult to regard the so-called so-called so-called the so-called so-called “victim” as a dangerous object of special assault, even if there is no fact that the victim did not assault the victim by means of taking the so-called “scopic disease” on the floor of the victim.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous as a matter of law.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s assertion of mistake as to the facts is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ① the victim appeared as a witness in the court of the lower court and stated to the effect that “the Defendant was on the floor of the Defendant’s disease towards the victim.” However, the victim made a false statement in order for the victimized person to mislead the Defendant, in a relatively specific and detailed manner, as the statement on the circumstance is reasonable and reasonable to a certain extent.

(2) According to field photographs, it is confirmed that the Defendant, etc. complained against the victim, etc. of the instant crime. The content corresponds to a certain degree of the victim’s statement as to the background of the instant crime. ③ The Defendant also stated in the investigative agency that “the Defendant: (a) saw the small-scale and medium-scale area of the small-scale area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area

arrow