logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.10 2015노529
폭행치사
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the defendant's imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) declared by the court below is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible.

Judgment

As the father of the victim, the Defendant, who was the victim due to the first assault by Co-Defendant B in the lower court, committed a serious consequence of the death of the victim by assaulting the victim in addition to the withdrawal of active relief measures even though the victim was not in a normal state, and neglecting considerable time. At the time of receiving the witness investigation due to the change of the victim, the victim was faced with his face at the time of returning to the victim at night.

Along with the fact that the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that he/she was unable to take autopsy because he/she was flickly flickly flickly flickly dead because he/she was flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant committed a crime, committed a mistake, committed a crime, committed a fluence and an influence of the victim, who is South Korea, while drinking alcohol due to the depression of the victim, influence and an influence of life restriction, and assaulting the victim by contingency. There is no criminal record exceeding the same criminal record or fine, it is difficult to view that there is a criminal responsibility for the death of the victim, and that the victim's family members (including the family members of the defendant) want to take the defendant against him/her influence, etc., which are favorable to the defendant.

In light of these circumstances, various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, means of crime, and circumstances after crime, the lower court’s sentence is too excessive within the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee.

arrow