(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노1025 | 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) 전주지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노1025

상해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as alleged in the facts charged, did not contain any fact that the victim spreads heavy coffee, and annoyingly, the victim’s wife does not constitute “injury” in the crime of injury as a superior agent.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below that the victim did not spread hot coffees to the victim, the victim has consistently made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and considering the victim’s statement, witness E, witness security guards’ statement, reproduction at the court of the court below, CCTV video, etc., the victim’s above statement can be acknowledged as reliable. Thus, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim spreads hot coffees to the victim, such as the facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court that the victim’s wife was not “injury” in the crime of injury, namely, the victim was diagnosed with two weeks of care by “the head and 2 degree video images” at the I Hospital on September 25, 2015 (the 30th page of the record of evidence). The date when the above diagnosis was prepared is close to the time when the victim’s injury was inflicted, and the part and symptoms of the injury correspond to the victim’s statement, and there is no other circumstance to suspect objectivity and credibility of the above diagnosis document, the victim’s injury suffered by the crime of this case does not need to be treated as an both annoyed wife, or thereby infringed the health condition.

It shall not be deemed as a case difficult to see.

Therefore, the defendant-appellant.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.11.23 2017노2276

-대구지방법원 2016.04.21 2015노1599

-대구지방법원 2017.08.10 2017노1108

-수원지방법원 2015.06.05 2014노6970

-서울남부지방법원 2021.01.26 2020노493