logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.06.21 2017노925
상해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts charged No. 1 of the instant facts charged by mistake, the Defendant did not have any intention to injure the victim, but suffered injury that may cause harm to the daily life of the victim due to the Defendant’s act, although there was a civilian fact, and there was no intention to injure the victim.

shall not be effective.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant suffered injury from a brain with the wall by the victim.

① The victim consistently made a statement from an investigative agency to the lower court’s court to the effect that the victim was faced with head on the wall while the victim was pushed down with the victim’s chest by hand while meeting at the Daegu Jung-gu apartment management office. The victim consistently made a statement to the effect that there was a dispute between the Defendant and the victim and the victim’s chest. The above CCTV image and the injury diagnosis written in the above management office also conforms to this.

② The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant was only the victim even after the victim was living, but did not physically injure the victim. However, in light of the fact that at the time, the Defendant and the victim were obsesses and were in dispute, and the degree of force suffered by the Defendant seen in CCTV images at the time, there was no intention to inflict an injury on the Defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

③ Taking into account the fact that the location of the victim was immediately front of the sofarcation in the management office at the time of the instant case, even if the Defendant was somewhat weak, the victim could have lost the balance of body, and the Defendant could have anticipated this.

I seem to appear.

(a).

arrow