logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.06.22 2018노289
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. That the report on the occurrence of a suspected incident prepared by a police officer dispatched after receiving a report from the victim on the day of the appeal on the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) has not been externally verified;

written, the victim does not want to be punished by the defendant

The defendant stated, and although the defendant did not call out, the victim was the victim's sound.

In light of the statement, there is no credibility of the statement made by the victim, and the defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts charged in this case and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in the determination.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to view the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of further examination of evidence conducted until the appellate trial final and conclusive, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 2017Do7871, Mar. 29, 2018). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and duly examined by the aforementioned legal doctrine, i.e., the victim, who attempted to have sexual intercourse in the beauty room from the investigation agency to the date of the first instance trial, was the victim’s own will and knekel as the victim’s loss.

arrow