logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.31 2016노4900
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) reveals that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds of the victim’s statement with no credibility although the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim can be fully recognized as stated in the lower judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(1) The fingers suffered by the injured party are caused by the injured person's boom at the same time as the accused.

② According to the field photographs immediately after the instant case, it is confirmed that a large quantity of cupped games, ruptures, etc. were broken at the time of the instant case.

In light of this, it seems that there was a serious dispute between the defendant and the victim at the time of the instant case.

③ The victim consistently makes a statement to the effect that the Defendant’s fingers were cut off by taking the victim’s fingers up until the investigation procedure and the original trial.

Although the victim's statement is somewhat unclear or consistent with the victim's statement regarding how the defendant has left the victim's fingers by any way, if the loss has been caused in the course of mutual dispute, the victim's statement is not sufficiently aware of the specific circumstances.

④ The intention of diagnosing the victim is to express his/her opinion that it is difficult to occur due to self-harm of the frame damaged by the victim.

(5) If a victim suffers from a frightion for reasons other than the act of the defendant, the frightion of the defendant or defendant in the frightion may sufficiently explain the circumstances of the frightion, but there is no explanation that such explanation may be sufficient to understand.

6. At the time of the instant case

K after the instant case, the Defendant.

arrow