(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.11 2015노2350 | 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) 대구지방법원 2016.11.11 2015노2350

상해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant did not injure the victim by smuggling, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the trial of the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim by facing the victim’s brupt in loading a truck, such as the instant facts charged.

1) The victim E’s statement in the investigative agency and the court of original instance, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, is not only consistent with the victim E’s statement in the investigation agency and the court of original instance, but also reliable in compliance with the statement made in the investigative agency as seen below. The Defendant asserted that even if the victim was able to sit together because the victim was her in the college and her seat at the time, the Defendant may not face a lusium. However, the purport of this part of the statement made in the investigative agency and the court of original instance is that the victim’s body was well-known and well-known, the credibility of the victim’s statement cannot be rejected on the ground of this point. 2) The witness’s statement made in the investigative

On the other hand, F stated in the court below that “I attend the court of the court below as a witness and see that there was an excessive fact, and there was no fact that the Defendant did not see the victim at all, and the mother of the victim was working later, and the police did not have any witness to this purpose, and the protocol was written differently from the statement.”

1. However, F’s statements made by investigative agencies are young.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2019.08.09 2019노260

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2016.06.09 2015노491

-대구지방법원 2016.11.02 2016노836

-서울동부지방법원 2014.05.29 2013노1495

-서울동부지방법원 2013.01.17 2012노1404