logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.06.11 2015노893
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등협박)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not guilty of a mistake of fact that there was no threat against the victim due to a fluoral disease, and there was no assault against the victim, and the Defendant does not intentionally destroy the free will owned by the victim

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as well as the lower court, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and the circumstances inferred therefrom, the Defendant committed assault, such as: (a) threatening the Defendant to display a sentry’s disease; and (b) threatening the Defendant to die; and (c) intentionally damaged the free will owned by the victim.

1) The victim consistently made a statement in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that "the defendant was killed while intending to go to her own illness," and she was sealed to her own pole, and the defendant was broken of the glass of her head." According to ① the victim reported 112 at the time of the occurrence of the case, ② the police officers dispatched to the scene showed the victim's illness to her head, ② the defendant displayed the victim's illness to her head, ③ the victim's statement by the victim's investigative agency and the court of the court below, ③ the victim's attitude of statement at the time of the instant case (the investigative record No. 22 pages), ③ the victim's attitude of statement at the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below, it is acknowledged that the victim's statement is credibility.

3. The defendant stated in an investigative agency and a court that he was unable to memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime. According to the records, the defendant drinks the alcohol at the time of the crime of this case.

arrow