(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.01.22 2015노1031 | 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) 울산지방법원 2016.01.22 2015노1031

상해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the process of preventing the Defendant from assaulting the victim, the Defendant, as recorded in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, made an implicit fluence, thereby resulting in the victim’s image, and the Defendant did not intentionally fluencing the victim’s timber, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility of the assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair, or considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of the additional examination conducted until the closing of oral argument at the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3846 Decided June 24, 2010). In light of the above legal principles, the lower court and the first instance court were duly admitted and examined by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, i.e., (i) the victim D brought the Defendant to the first instance court from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance until the day of the instant case, and (ii) the Defendant took an implied smell with the content of his/her own stocks, and (iii) the victim D consistently made a statement to the same effect at the time of the first instance.

H was unable to witness the face of the victim's neck because the defendant was able to fluently fluor in the court of original instance.

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 6. 24. 선고 2010도3846 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2018.12.20 2018노2446

-서울북부지방법원 2018.06.28 2018노334

-창원지방법원 2017.04.13 2016노2661

-울산지방법원 2018.08.10 2018노535

-전주지방법원 2018.04.06 2018노86