(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.17 2017노4156

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.17 2017노4156

폭행

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, nor did the Defendant assaulted the victim B, and rather was subject to assault and confinement against the victim.

In addition, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a legitimate defense or legitimate act in light of the background, method, and degree of the Defendant’s assault as stated in the lower judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

(1) The victim made a very specific and consistent statement in an investigative agency and a court of a trial about the situation and circumstances at the time of the assault by the defendant, the details of the damage, etc., and, at the time of the occurrence of the case, the cab box image and the damaged photograph immediately after the case conforms to the statement of such victim.

② According to the situation of the police’s on-site mobilization stated in the current arrest letter of a criminal, the Defendant took a cab back the victim’s breath and breath, and took the victim’s face by hand even under the police.

③ On the other hand, the Defendant, while recognizing that he had expressed a bath at an investigative agency, did not memory that he had received a card to pay the taxi fee.

of the victim's spath, the victim's spathy was not thought about the fact that the victim's spathy was spathd.

An ambiguous statement was made.

B. The instant case’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.12.14 2018노1343

-서울고등법원 2017.03.08 2016노3942

-의정부지방법원 2018.08.27 2018노520

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2016.06.23 2016노179

-광주지방법원 2018.11.21 2018노2465