logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.05.02 2014노122
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As the victim of misunderstanding of facts did not believe the Defendant’s horse, the Defendant saw that “the Defendant was dead, mixed,” and she saw her body toward the victim by scaming the beer and scaming the beer as it was, and during that process, the victim’s eyebrow was flurged in lids of beer and lids of beer, and there is no fact that the Defendant when she was the victim of beer disease.

In addition, at the time, the defendant did not have any motive or reason to wait for the victim due to beer's disease, nor did he act in such a situation, and there was no hole on the part of the victim's injury, and the beer's disease was not broken.

Therefore, even though the victim was merely injured by the defendant's loss, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the result.

B. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the beer’s disease, even though the beer’s disease, which was the Defendant, cannot be deemed as a dangerous thing.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of suspension of execution and 120 hours of community service order in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim and G, who had been reported immediately after the occurrence of the case, told the police officer called “the defendant was deadly injured due to beer or sick,” and consistently stated with the same purport from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below. ② On the other hand, the defendant was investigated by the public prosecutor, while the defendant was under investigation by the public prosecutor, was the victim himself, and the defendant was the victim in the process of emphasizing his sexual scambling with the victim.

arrow