logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.12.26 2014노1517
상해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not cause injury to victim E as stated in the judgment of the court below, and instead, even though the defendant was the victim who was killed by E, he was forced to make a false confession at the time of the investigation and fabricated the investigation result, thereby changing to the perpetrator.

Even if there is a fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on E, it constitutes self-defense or legitimate act that the defendant had been done for the purpose of defending himself against the illegal act of murder or threat of murder of E.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The part of the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts reveals the following facts or circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined and the evidence, namely, ① the victim E, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, determined that “the Defendant was trying to die while driving in her country.” Therefore, the victim E, “whether the Defendant was not being injured, not being adhered to others,” and there was no her face. Nevertheless, the Defendant took the face by drinking. However, the Defendant’s above assault, which led to the Defendant’s above assault, left the hospital with a large amount of hospital expenses, and left the hospital. Accordingly, the Defendant and the F was satched. In this sense, the Defendant and the F was sat. The first time, the victim E was dead, and the Defendant’s consent was affixed at the police station to the degree that it was inflicted on the E-mail at the time of the occurrence of the witness at the time of the lower judgment.”

arrow