(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.09 2013노3264

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.09 2013노3264

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Fact-finding (1) The Defendant was waiting under the police at the time of Defendant A, leading up to the call for a police report, and did not interfere with the victim’s work or assault the victim due to the fact that he was outside of 20 to 30 seconds.

In addition, as the passage to people at the time is obstructed, it is nothing more than breaking up the debrising with the debrising of the debris.

(2) Defendant B did not interfere with the victim’s activities.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant B: 50,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, it is recognized that the Defendant, together with Defendant D and B, interfered with the victim’s work, inflicted injury on the victim in collaboration with Defendant D, and destroyed two chemical parts.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

(1) At the time from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, at the time, the victim took a disturbance by shouldering the parts of the Defendant’s office, and specifically stated the major matters concerning the instant crime, such as the reason, reason, method, and subsequent circumstances of assaulting the victim, and the statement is consistent, as well as the content thereof.

(2) Although there are a few differences in the detailed parts in the investigative agency and the court of the court below, it is consistent with the victim’s statement by consistently making a statement to the effect that “the defendant was on the table while going on the table, broken off by exceeding the router, broken off by the router’s other routtures, and followed by the victim’s outbreak.”

(3) L, the Defendant’s first-hand L, is in the court below’s decision.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.09.26 2013고정361

-의정부지방법원 2015.06.02 2015노70

-전주지방법원 2013.01.09 2012노371

-의정부지방법원 2014.09.25 2014노1338

-대전지방법원 2017.06.15 2016노3418