(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.06.07 2017노555 | 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 2017.06.07 2017노555

특수상해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which rejected the Defendant’s assertion of innocence was unlawful since it did not put any reason on the part of the Defendant and found the Defendant guilty.

B. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The defendant cited Aluminum sinum with the victim in the process of avoiding disturbance and thus, the victim was injured thereby. Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of injury.

2) Even if the intention of a domestic injury is recognized, the Defendant cannot be punished as a special crime of injury, since it does not constitute a dangerous thing in aluminium.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. We examine the determination of the non-performance of reasons. The judgment of the court below clearly stated the criminal facts, the summary of evidence, and the application of the statutes in relation to the special injury found guilty pursuant to Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Meanwhile, the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel on the facts that constituted the elements of a special crime of injury constitutes the assertion on the grounds that the Defendant and the defense counsel did not intend to commit or endanger the act of injury. However, the “fact that constitutes a legal ground to avoid the formation of a crime,” which is stipulated in Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, does not include the fact that constitutes the elements of a crime. As such, the lower judgment did not separately state

(2) No person shall be deemed to be unlawful.

We cannot accept this part of the defendant and his defense counsel.

B. 1) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below to determine the intention of injury and the testimony of the witness F of the trial witness of the court below as to the mistake of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant collected Alumin aluminium shots while punishing the victim F and recognized the fact that the defendant got off to the above victim. Thus, there was an intentional injury on the part of the defendant.

It is reasonable to view it.

The defendant and the defendant in this part.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.01.26 2016노2898

-울산지방법원 2017.10.12 2017고단1398

-대전지방법원 2018.11.16 2018고합397

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.22 2016노2603

-울산지방법원 2021.02.09 2020노1562