logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.02.10 2016노4666
특수상해등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the part of the judgment below, which affected the Defendant’s judgment), do not inflict an injury on the victim by carrying a mechanical key key, which is a dangerous object, but is merely an intentional possession of it regardless of the crime. Moreover, the degree of injury inflicted on one victim does not require medical treatment, and is able to recover nature, and thus does not constitute an injury of a special injury.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged has erred by mistake.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s above sentence is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. When the ex officio judgment prosecutor is in the first instance trial, “1. Special Bodily Injury” in the part of the facts charged in the instant case as “1. Special Bodily Injury, Disturbance of Business,” and “injury was inflicted.”

“Along with the injury of the victim, the victim interfered with the PC operation work.”

In addition, on December 30, 2016, an application for changes in the indictment was filed on the amendment of Article 314 (1) and Article 40 of the Criminal Act, which added "Article 314 (1) and Article 40 of the Criminal Act", and the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court's permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) As to the assertion that the Defendant did not carry dangerous goods, “Dangerous goods” under Article 3(1) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act includes all articles that can be widely used to harm the life and body of a person even if they are not a deadly weapon, so the original purpose is to kill and destroy them.

arrow