(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.06.12 2013노2504 | 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) 창원지방법원 2014.06.12 2013노2504

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등

Text

The judgment below

Among them, the part on the injury of July 8, 2012 is reversed.

Defendant 2,000,000 won.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal in this case is whether the first police statement of the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) may be reliable.

(1) With respect to the crime of confinement under paragraph (1) of the facts charged, even if based on the victim's statement reversed, the fact of confinement in the house against the victim's will may be recognized by taking the hand, which the defendant seeks to leave the house by wrapping his body.

(2) 2-A of the facts charged.

With regard to the injury of the victim on July 8, 2012 in the paragraph, the victim, as well as the defendant, recognized the fact that the defendant was at the time of the victim's scam at the same time, and even according to the reversed statement of the victim, the victim made a statement that the victim was faced with the victim's chest in the process of turning the victim's scam from the defendant one time, and even according to the victim's scam at the same time, the victim made a statement that he was faced with the victim's chest in the process of turning the scam at one time from the defendant. The statement of the injury diagnosis on the

(3) The facts charged 2-B

With regard to the injury of February 25, 2013 in the above paragraph, the defendant and the victim acknowledged the fact that they had been satisfed at the house living together with the victim at the above time, and the victim stated that the victim had been satisfed with the victim in the process. The victim sufficiently recognized this part of the facts charged because it was recognized that the victim had received medical treatment at the hospital due to the satisfing of the bridge around that time, unlike the initial police statement, the victim reversed the statement to the effect that he was faced with the victim who was faced with the construction site, and suffered the satisfe of the bridge because the victim was satfed with the victim, but did not specifically state the circumstances, and it is difficult to believe that some statements made by the victim do not coincide with the common sense.

(4)

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.06.14 2019노572

-대구지방법원 2015.05.22 2014노3369

-대구지방법원 2016.12.08 2016노2622

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.20 2016노708

-춘천지방법원 2013.05.01 2012노823