logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.11.15 2013노1009
폭행등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts: (a) while francing B due to the problem of refusal to take passengers in B and taxi, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit an assault but did not have any injury by assaulting C.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victims made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below to the extent consistent with the facts charged in this case; ② the statement in the court of the court below at the time is consistent and the circumstances of the case are very specific; ② the statement in the court of the court below at the time is consistent with the statements of the victims; ③ the victims C received medical treatment and the written diagnosis of injury from the hospital following the day of the instant case (E stated in the court of the court below to the effect that the victims were not victims, but it is difficult to believe that the Defendant was not victims in light of the relationship with the Defendant E); and the above assertion can be sufficiently recognized, and therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes by contingency in the course of finding a taxi on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the instant crime was committed by the Defendant on the ground that the taxi engineer refused boarding, and the nature of the crime is not good. The Defendant was punished for the same crime, the Defendant did not recover damage to the victims, and other crimes of this case.

arrow