logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.09.09 2015노602
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The defendant above.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles only caused the victim H's face one time due to food, and there is no fact of citing beer's disease.

The judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, deadly weapon, etc.) on the ground of the lack of credibility or lack of credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misconception of facts against the rules of evidence.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. A. The summary of the facts charged was around 02:20 on May 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) while walking on the road in front of the F building in Seocho-gu, Changwon-si; (b) on the part of the Defendant, G and I would take a step to go through the victim H’s first step, and (c) the victim told G and I would like to engage in physical fighting by saying “A,” while the victim stated that G would be “A,” the victim would have pushed the victim’s breast part of the victim’s face, which is a beer disease, a dangerous object near the scene, and caused injury, such as inside the 49 days for medical treatment.

B. 1) In a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the degree of conviction as above, the interests of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011). In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, it is insufficient to recognize that the materials submitted by the prosecutor alone, which led to the defendant, left the victim’s face.

arrow