(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.07.16 2013노3077 | 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 2014.07.16 2013노3077

모욕

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Reasons

1. In full view of the fact that the statements of the victim and witness are consistent with the main part of the grounds for appeal and there was a fact that the defendant had expressed his desire to do so, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, even if the facts charged in this case are found guilty, is erroneous

2. Determination:

A. Around December 16, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 22:00 on the street in front of the Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu Seoul Building; (b) an accident that conflict between the left-hand whiteer on the left-hand side of the vehicle operated by the Defendant and the victim D (the age of 57) (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) and the right-hand whiteer of the vehicle driven by the Defendant.

While there are several persons, such as E, etc. passing through their places, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by bringing the victim’s desire to “I will see how much vehicles can be cut off, Chewing, and deadly.”

B. As evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there was no credibility of each of the above evidence, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, in full view of the following: (a) the witness’s statement in the second trial record; (b) the witness E’s legal statement; (c) the police statement in D and E; and (d) the background leading up to the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case due to the Defendant’s mistake; and (c) D and E’s contradictory statements

C. According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court and the lower court’s judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and not guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though the Defendant could have found the victim’s abusiveation among several criminal offenders, thereby insulting the victim.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument pointing this out is with merit.

1. The witness E of the original court is the witness E.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2013.11.20 2013고정512

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.05 2014노3802

-광주지방법원 2013.05.15 2012노2542

-서울서부지방법원 2018.09.13 2018노740

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.09.11 2013고단940