logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.31 2017노7998
상해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the consistent statement of the victim and the statement of the medical certificate of injury consistent with the victim's statement, etc., the court below found the defendant guilty of the defendant's injury by misunderstanding the facts, which led the victim to breaking the victim's dub, and destroying the victim's dubage beyond the bottom, at the time and place of the crime, but the court below acquitted the victim of the injury by misunderstanding the facts. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the facts

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court held that it is difficult to believe that the victim’s statement is inconsistent with the CCTV images taken under the circumstances and at the time, and that it is difficult for the victim to believe that it is, under the influence of alcohol, it is difficult to avoid the possibility that the victim suffered the same injury as the stated in this part of the facts charged because he/she himself/herself exceeded the stairs from the third to the first floor, which is the place where his/her residence was located, or her escapeing the Defendant, over two times during the period of under the influence of alcohol, and thus, he/she suffered the injury by the victim.

Even after the point of time of assertion, there was a lack of evidence submitted by the prosecutor to acknowledge that the defendant was injured by the victim, such as the statement in this part of the facts charged, in full view of the following: (a) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant was injured by the victim, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

2) In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the victim was unable to wear a bridge at the cost of face before the victim’s house, at the time of the victim’s house.

arrow