(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.05.25 2015노2589 | 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 2016.05.25 2015노2589

재물손괴등

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

2. Defendant B is not guilty.3. Defendant B is not guilty.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the part of the lower judgment, the Defendant did not assault B as described in the facts charged in the instant case.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant was unilaterally assaulted by A, and did not inflict an injury upon A, as described in the facts charged in the instant case.

2) Legal doctrine misunderstanding, even if the Defendant had inflicted injury upon A, as described in the facts charged in the instant case,

However, in light of the situation at the time, the Defendant’s use of force constitutes passive resistance to prevent A from entering a dangerous construction site, and is not illegal since it constitutes an act that does not go against social norms.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence as to the assertion of mistake of facts may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant committed assault by taking the victim B’s head into consideration on the floor of hand once.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

1) B from the investigative agency to the court of the court below’s trial, from the investigation agency to the court of the trial, “The Defendant saw the disturbance without entering the construction site at which the Defendant is prohibited to enter and leaving the cell phone, thereby leaving the cell phone in his hand, and the Defendant honded the hos that the Defendant attempted to take the cell phone away from the floor, once again her head with his hand.

“The” is specifically and consistently stated to the effect that “.”

2) At the time of the instant construction site

F is the defect that the investigative agency and the court of the court below cited the cell phone while punishing the Defendant and the cellular system in the investigation agency and the court of the court.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.06.15 2016노342

-서울동부지방법원 2017.06.23 2016노1916

-수원지방법원 2016.10.13 2016노2685

-수원지방법원 2015.08.12 2015고단2509

-부산지방법원 2017.01.24 2016노3748