logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.11.27 2015노2583
강도상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The injury suffered by the victim of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles during the course of committing the crime of injury by robbery of this case shall not cause any impediment to daily life and shall not be deemed as an injury to the crime of injury by robbery to the extent that no special treatment is required for its recovery.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of injury by robbery, either by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

A mentally ill-minded defendant was drunk at the time of committing the instant crime and was in a state of mental disability.

The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In relation to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, injury in the crime of injury by robbery in the relevant legal doctrine refers to a change of a victim’s physical health condition to a poor condition and a disability in his/her living function. If the injured party’s wife is extremely minor and the injured party does not need to receive treatment, and there is no difficulty in daily life and the injured party’s physical health can be naturally cured following the lapse of the day, the injured party’s physical health condition was changed to a poor condition.

It is difficult to see that there is an obstacle to the function of life or that there is an injury in the crime of robbery.

(1) The court below’s judgment also asserted the same purport, and based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the court below determined that the Defendant’s wife suffered from the injury by robbery constituted an injury by robbery, which constitutes a crime of robbery, under the following circumstances: (a) it is difficult to view that the wife suffered from the injury did not interfere with daily life and is extremely minor to natural therapy within a short time; and (b) it constitutes an injury that constitutes a crime of robbery.

The victim complained of inconvenience from the first time to the upper part of the inner part, and in relation to the degree of the injury at the police, the victim is suffering from the injury.

arrow