(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.10.20 2016노159 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.10.20 2016노159

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)

Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) ① the co-defendant B of the original trial (hereinafter “B”) consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court that there was no motive to make a false statement, but that there was no motive to commit a crime under the mutual agreement between the Defendant and B, and that there was credibility in the statement, ② the Defendant took the police officer dispatched to the police officer at the time of the occurrence of the instant case.

Considering the fact that the Defendant did not have made a statement that he had exercised violence to the extent that the toilets were destroyed or damaged, but only made a statement that he had knife B made a new statement that he had knife B after three days, and added the statement that he was accompanied by the toilets from the court of original instance to the toilet text, the Defendant’s statement is not reliable. ③ The Defendant’s unilaterally taken the toilet text photographs at the time when six months elapsed since the occurrence of the instant case was closed in the court below, it is reasonable to use them as the basis for recognizing self-defense necessary to prove the same degree as the evidence submitted by the defense counsel after the closure of the arguments in the court below, ④ the possibility that B used B knife on the basis of the Defendant’s statement, even though there was no evidence to determine that B knife B used as reference material, it was an abuse of the principle of presumption of innocence, the court below’s judgment did not recognize the Defendant’s self-defense, but did not err in misapprehending the legal principles and application provisions of Article 125-2 of the Criminal Act.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment prosecutor.

참조조문

-형법 제258조의2 제1항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.04.14 2017노463

-창원지방법원 2014.10.22 2014노1056

-울산지방법원 2020.06.25 2019노937

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.23 2018노2612

-대구지방법원 2014.12.30 2014노705