logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.05.20 2015노4579 (1)
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. Although the defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim E, the judgment of the court below which found him guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, in the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for changes in the criminal facts charged against the defendant to "special injury" under Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," and the court applied for changes in the indictment to "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act." Since this court permitted the changes in the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect.

B. In such a case, the lower court’s “pre-amended facts charged” or “Revised facts charged” in the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty refers to the Defendant’s pregnancy from the victim’s home at around November 11, 2014 at around 13:00 and 7 days of pregnancy; and

In the course of dispute with the other strings, the victim's shoulder was broken up by hand, and the victim's pet dog laps, which are dangerous objects in the toilet at that place (hereinafter "the family laps of this case"), and two times the victim's head was sealed by two times, and two open laps requiring two-time medical treatment.

“.....” However, as seen earlier, only the name of the crime and the provision of the applicable law have different meanings.

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake that there was no injury to the victim even if there was a ground for ex officio reversal is still subject to the judgment of this court.

arrow