logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.10.31 2013노2617
특수폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Compared to the misunderstanding of facts, the fact that the Defendant argued the Raber as his hand while disputing the victim, the Defendant did not threaten the victim as the Raber as with the Raber. Moreover, the Razakn was scknife against the victim because the victim was scknife against the Defendant, and there was no fact that the victim's lab was fld against the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, that is, this case occurred since the defendant parked a vehicle in front of the Ka Center operated by the victim and interfered with the passage of the vehicle that the defendant wants to enter the Ka Center into the Ka Center as a fighting match, and the victim consistently brought about and threatened the defendant as shown in the facts charged of this case from the investigative agency up to the court below, and consistently up to the court below, the defendant dracks the Rab with the Rab and knife, and made a knife with the victim's knife. The witness's statements and photographs correspond to the victim's above statement, and the witness's investigative agency and the court below's judgment are also consistent with the victim's above statement, and the defendant also recognized the fact that drack and knife were used as a knife by carrying a deadly weapon.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. According to the record of judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the victim appears to have expressed his/her desire to the Defendant.

However, this case is the vehicle of the defendant in front of the car center of the victim who is in need of smooth traffic of the vehicle.

arrow