logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.07 2015노4377
폭행
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The Defendant, as a matter of course, was guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, without assaulting the victim by misunderstanding the victim E’s face and driving the victim’s hand by a cigaretteing, etc.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the penalty amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the facts charged at the trial of the party, the prosecutor used the victim's face at the victim E when the victim's face is taken, and used the victim's hand by a cigaretteing.

“The victim who observed this part” assaulted the victim’s breath by bating the victim’s breath by bating the victim’s batch.

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed, and the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court’s permission, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the argument that there is a misunderstanding of the fact that “the victim did not assault” is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, as stated in the facts charged prior to the amendment, the victim does not assault the victim by drinking the victim’s face, and by riding the victim’s hand on a boat or boat.

However, as seen earlier, the facts charged changed to the purport that “the Defendant assaulted the victim’s breath by breathing the breath in hand,” and the Defendant and his defense counsel stated to the effect that the Defendant and his defense counsel carried the bage of the victim at the third trial date. As such, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake in the above facts need not be determined further.

arrow