(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.01.14 2015노535 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.01.14 2015노535

과실치상

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. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles do not have any legal basis to acknowledge the duty of care as stated in the judgment of the court below by misapprehending the legal principles, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge the fact that the victim had gone to the same circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below, except the victim's statement. The victim

Even if there is no substantial relation between the defendant's negligence and the victim's injury.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's injury by negligence is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to negligence and negligence.

B. Even if the sentencing was found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable in light of the background and overall circumstances of the instant case.

2. Determination

A. According to the legitimate evidence of the lower court, including the statements of the victim and G, which have credibility in determining the factual misunderstanding of the facts, the fact that, on the day of the instant case, during the Defendant’s opening of the fish farm and going out of the fish farm, the victim was satisfed by combining the neck lines, and the victim was satisfying, and the victim was satisfed by the satisfing lines of the pet dog to avoid the said satisfy, and more than twice more than twice more than twice more than twice more than 12 weeks, and the victim suffered injury, such as pressure satisfing the satisf for three-time medical treatment.

Therefore, the court below's finding of facts is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant.

B. The Defendant, who manages a judgment of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, is obliged to take safety measures, such as binding a dog with a cover, putting a dog over a cover, preventing a dog from leaving the place where he/she manages, thereby preventing any act threatening people, etc. from spreading to the dog.

However, according to G's statements, the defendant's opening out of the two fishing grounds.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2015.6.4.선고 2015고정171 판결

-대구지방법원 2013.10.17 2013고정2126

-대전지방법원 2016.10.20 2016노1720

-창원지방법원 2018.04.12 2017고정1012

-의정부지방법원 2017.01.17 2016고정1827