logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.07.26 2018노310
특수폭행등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) With respect to special assault and special intimidation, the Defendant: (a) as stated in this part of the facts charged, she saw the victim’s neck and discarded down; and (b) assault, such as taking the kitchen knick, or kills the victim.

In other words, there is no other fact that the victim has been threatened, such as taking the kitchen knife from the kitchen lease.

2) As to defamation, ten other parties who sent e-mail as indicated in this part of the facts charged are all the victims’ representative director or club members of the company where the victims work and have assisted the victims, and thus there is no performance.

The defendant sent e-mail as above to the victim's employees' advice in order to clarify false facts about the defendant and maintain his/her livelihood. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the mistake of facts or the misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant’s use of the kitchen gate, which is a dangerous thing in the kitchen at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged, as the kitchen kn's hand, and thrown away the victim’s neck with the left hand.

It means the fact that the knife was assaulted by the victim, and at the time, the defendant died together with the victim.

In other words, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the defendant, since it is sufficiently recognized that a kitchen victim has threatened the victim by taking a bet lease that he was seated.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

2) As to defamation, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal on this part of the lower judgment, and the lower court rendered a judgment on the judgment.

arrow