logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.08 2016노871
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to Article 361-2 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the gist of the grounds for appeal, in a case where a defense counsel is appointed before the notification of the receipt of the trial records, the court of appeals shall order the defense counsel to receive the notification of the receipt of the trial records. Thus, in a case where the defense counsel is appointed after the notification of the notification of the receipt of the trial records to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 65Mo34, Aug. 25, 1965). The same applies to a case where the appellate court revokes the appointment of a defense counsel upon the appointment of the defendant and the defense counsel after the notification of the notification of the receipt of the trial records,

(Supreme Court Order 2006Mo623 Decided December 7, 2006, etc.). According to the records, the records can be acknowledged that the defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment and the defendant’s defense counsel sent the notification of the receipt of the trial records on March 14, 2016 to the public defender on March 17, 2016. The defendant filed an appellate brief on March 24, 2016. The defendant’s public defender filed an appellate brief on March 24, 2016. The court revoked the appointment of a public defender on the same day by the appointment of a private defense counsel on March 25, 2016. The private defense counsel of the defendant submitted each written opinion on April 25, 2016, and May 30, 2016.

Therefore, it is evident that the defendant's private defense counsel submitted each written opinion on April 25, 2016 and May 30, 2016 by the defendant's private defense counsel is submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal. Thus, new arguments stated in the above written opinion are not subject to the judgment of this court.

As stated in the facts charged, it is doubtful that there is no fact that the victim flaps and flaps, and that there was an injury to the victim.

2. The victim, at the investigative agency, the court below, and the court of appeal, of this case.

arrow