logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.06.13 2018노3068
모욕등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) Regarding the case of 2016 ancient 622, 2016 ancient 789 charges 3, 4, 2016 High 789, and 2016 High 832 cases: The Defendant withdrawn from E in August 2015; thus, the written statements in each part of the facts charged are not posted by the Defendant but posted by the third party, such as the victim B, etc. by stealing the Defendant’s ID; 2) as to the case of 2018 High 85: ① there was no fact that the Defendant sent the Defendant to Y, and the photographs that cut down the relevant Mesen were fabricated, and ② even if the Defendant sent the same page, there is no performance.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. There was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate court’s trial process of a determination of mistake of facts, and the determination of the value of evidence in the first instance court was clearly erroneous.

In a case where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case in the lower court. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail and convicted all the charges of this case on the following grounds: “Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion” under the title “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion”.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

(b).

arrow