(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.12.20 2016노2746 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2017.12.20 2016노2746

상해등

Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of fact (the point of injury) is defective and defective and the victim was knifeed. The victim only lost the center of the mixed person while booming it, and there was no injury caused by the victim’s breathing of breath and destroying a bridge.

2) Illegal sentencing (as to the judgment below of the court below Nos. 1, 2, and 3)

B. Each prosecutor’s unfair sentencing (as to the judgment of the court below No. 1 and No. 2)

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for each appeal on the grounds of ex officio.

As to the judgment of the court below in the first, second, and third cases, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below in the first and second cases, and the court decided to concurrently examine the above appeal case.

Each crime of the first, second, and third judgment against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below in the first, second, and third judgment cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, since the defendant's assertion of mistake about the judgment of the court of first instance needs to be judged by this court, this Court will be examined below.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (the first instance judgment), the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court.

As to this, the lower court may find out the following circumstances by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, i.e., ① the victim was the Defendant at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court court’s trial, “after the Defendant was out of the scam, the Defendant was deprived of his scam and scambling with two hand, and the Defendant was faced with a cement fence following his scambling.

“A relatively consistent statement to the effect that the Defendant was a victim and a police fighting match.”

After making a statement, the police tried to ask the body of the police in detail and refused to make a statement.

참조조문

-형법 제38조 제1항

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.10.14 2016고단1483

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.02.09 2016노204

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.26 2018노1427

-부산지방법원 2017.05.12 2016노4854

-대전지방법원 2018.09.20 2016노2720