logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.06.09 2015노234
과실치상
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is the crime of injury by negligence, and constitutes the crime of injury by negligence, and as such, since the victim had withdrawn his wish to punish the defendant before the judgment of the court below, the judgment of dismissal of prosecution shall be rendered. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of injury by negligence, etc. by misapprehending the punishment of 1.5 million won against the defendant.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the public interest personnel, and the victim is a student.

On April 24, 2014, at around 03:40, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol in front of Samsung Bio-ro, Nam-gu, Incheon, Incheon, 428 (Jandong-dong-dong-dong), was working for the victim D (the victim 22 years of age). As the Defendant was able to sit at the college and let the victim engage in his/her business on his/her own, etc., there was a duty of care to prevent the victim from getting out of the floor.

Nevertheless, the defendant had the victim face face face in the future, and the victim suffered injury such as the number of days of treatment due to the injury of the victim.

3. We examine the judgment. The facts charged of this case are the crimes falling under Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's clearly expressed intent under Article 266(2) of the Criminal Act. According to the written agreement compiled in the trial records, the victim can be acknowledged as having withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on December 19, 2014. Thus, the prosecution of this case must be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the court below found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case.

Therefore, since the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the dismissal of prosecution under Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant's appeal pointing this out

4. Conclusion, the defendant.

arrow