logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.05.26 2016노346
아동복지법위반(아동학대)등
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (guilty in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant did not assault the victim C or sound the victim D as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Even if the defendant and the victim C were not included in the case of marital fighting, or the defendant had a sound to the victim D as shown in the facts charged.

Even if such circumstance alone, the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed emotional abuse against the victim D.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below), around 2013, the Defendant committed emotional abuse on two occasions against the victim D, and the statement made by the victim and C related to this part of the facts charged is specific and consistent, and in light of the victim’s age and the victim’s psychological condition after the case, the Defendant’s behavior can be evaluated as a sufficiently emotional abuse. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the guilty part of the judgment of the court below)

A. Based on the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant committed the same act as the facts charged against the victim D on April 19, 2014 and April 26, 2014, and want to do so with the mother C.

arrow