(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.12.01 2017노2826 | 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) 서울고등법원 2017.12.01 2017노2826

상해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant, first of all, had the victim use on the floor in order to resist that the victim had him/her use on the floor by making him/her use on the floor. However, there was no injury in excess of the victim to the extent that it is necessary to give four weeks of medical treatment.

Nevertheless, the lower court that sentenced the victim guilty is unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by cutting down the victim’s neck and destroying bridges.

A person may be appointed, and even before the victim's act was committed, there was a fact that the injured person had his head towards the shoulder of the defendant.

Even if the defendant is found guilty, it is not an obstacle to the recognition of the defendant.

The judgment of the court below is just and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① On-site CCTV images, the Defendant gets off the Defendant’s shoulder, and then prices the neck of the victim (15:43:12 studio hours), and the body fightings with the victim are taken by a stude (15:43:42 studios). On-site CCTV images, the stude of the victim’s booms with the victim by putting him/her up his/her seat and cutting him/her over with his/her body toward the floor.

② The victim stated to the effect that “the Defendant, who is going beyond the front of the church entrance, was tightly cut off with the victim,” and that “the victim and the members of the D church like the Defendant, present at the scene” in the court of original instance, also stated that “the Defendant was able to sprinke the victim’s sprink.”

The statements of the victim and G are not only consistent with each other, but also consistent with the CCTV images, and their credibility is high.

(3)

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2021.03.18 2020고단7754

-울산지방법원 2020.10.29 2020고정250

-제주지방법원 2013.12.19 2013고합102

-창원지방법원 2018.09.12 2018고정406

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.02.07 2013고정1829