logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.08.19 2014노2875
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding ① With regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) among the crimes of this case, the defendant did not have any fact about the victim E in the absence of any harm by the victim E, and the crime was committed only on the floor. In the process, the disease was broken, and the injury was only caused to the victim by the strike, and there was no intention of injury to the victim E.

② As to the act of injury during the crime of this case, even if the defendant drinked the victim G face, or did not contain flapsing, and the defendant's hand took the victim G face, it is an accident that the defendant did not take the part in the process of marking his arms in order to defend B's assault, and there is no intention to inflict an injury on the defendant. Thus, even if there was an intention to do so, it does not constitute an element of the crime of this case, even if there was an intention to do so, the G in which fighting was flabed with B, etc., and the defendant committed an act of assaulting with B, etc., and thus, it constitutes an error defense, and thus, the defendant

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a) against the victim E (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the victim stated in the statement submitted to the first investigative agency that “the defendant was teared, and the face of B was teared, because the strike was protruding from B’s face” (the investigative record No. 47 pages), and then made a statement at the police.

arrow