logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.04.20 2017노4419
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act, since the Defendant is merely a shoulder to remove the victim by drawing the victim’s own arms.

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

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion by explaining the grounds for its determination.

B. In a case where the appellate court, even though there was no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial, intends to re-examine the first deliberation decision and ex post facto determine it, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first deliberation decision was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair because it is contrary to logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, the appellate court should not reverse without permission any such exceptional circumstance (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017).

Based on the above legal principles, there is no objective reason that could affect the formation of a new conviction in the court below, and there is no reasonable circumstance to view that maintaining the judgment of the court below is considerably unfair when comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below with the contents of the court below.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair assertion of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the first instance court.

arrow