logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.11.12 2015노1343
상해등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definites) is as follows: (a) there is a public notice of the possibility of the death of livestock caused by the sofinite finites; and (b) the Defendant, despite being aware of the operation of the sofinites for pigs inside the cattle shed, destroyed the sofinites; and (c) it is sufficiently recognized that

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the damage to property among the facts charged in the instant case.

2. In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) to change the applicable provisions to “Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act” and “Article 369(1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act,” and this court permitted the amendment of the Act and changed the applicable provisions to “Article 369(1).”

This part of the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to the remaining criminal facts and the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts about the acquittal portion is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the damage to property among the facts charged of this case on the following grounds.

In order to recognize that the Defendant, who had no experience in both moneys, was aware of the possibility that pigs in the spawn might die due to the higher spawn if the spawn had not operated, there was a circumstance that the Defendant could recognize the above possibility in advance.

at least 100 m3.

arrow