(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.06.10 2015노2578 | 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) 대전지방법원 2016.06.10 2015노2578

폭행

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not assault the victimized person as described in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the defendant can fully recognize the facts of assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged.

① According to on-site CCTV images, the victim of the victim of the victim's 4th floor Scar, was exposed to the victim, and the victim was exposed to the victim, and the victim was exposed to the face, and immediately after which the victim was exposed, the victim was off the face, and the victim was faced with the victim, and the defendant, who talked with the victim, seems to have taken the face over about about 10 seconds while the victim was exposed to the victim.

② The victim spits or spits the victim from investigative agencies to the lower court’s court’s trial. The victim spits or spits the victim, and spits the arms of the victim.

“The” stated to the effect that the content thereof is specific, consistent, and reasonable in a situation explanation, and its credibility is recognized.

The testimony of the witness K at the court below also conforms with the statement of the victim.

(3) The Defendant is dissatisfied with the outcome of requesting the analysis of CCTV images at the scene of this case to the Video Analysis and Analysis Research Institute that there is no fact that the victimized person has attached the Defendant.

However, the opinion of the above research institute is that "the defendant's Handphone was placed on the left hand, so it could not contact the victim, and therefore, the victim was placed on the left hand in the situation where the victim was able to be injured by a bad hand.

It is difficult to see it.

“The victim” is merely the purport of “the victim, and the victim is the victim’s son who was the victim.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2018.04.18 2017고정942

-울산지방법원 2019.09.20 2019노571

-서울남부지방법원 2018.12.18 2017노1729

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.10 2019노1844

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2016.06.17 2015고단2234