logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.14 2017노1220
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds of appeal, the Defendants jointly and successively obstructed the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, thereby causing injury to the victim, and at the time there was an intentional injury to the Defendants.

full recognition may be accepted.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone led the Defendants to jointly inflict an injury on the victim, or that there was an intentional injury on the Defendants.

It is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

(1) At the same time, the injured party first got in the investigative agency that he/she was pushed ahead of himself/herself.

After the statement (see, e.g., the 19th page of the evidence record), the defendant A was pushed down with himself, and the defendant B was sweed with the defendant B in order to not go beyond it, and the defendant B was sweed with him again.

The statement was reversed (see, e.g., the 49, 113 evidence records, the 56, 57, 61, and 62 of the trial records). (2) The victim sent on Nov. 9, 2015 a letter to the defendant A that he/she would file a complaint if he/she did not pay the unpaid management fees (see, e.g., the 30th page of the trial records). (3) The victim did not look at the victim who was in front of the sentence by the investigative agency, but rather carried out a match.

The lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court on March 3, 200 (see, e.g., evidence No. 113).

On November 1, 2015, when the victim submitted at the trial on November 1, 2015, the patient's type of occurrence is indicated as "video", and the victim's benefit of medical care on November 2, 2015 is specified.

arrow