logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.20 2015노314
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the defendant did not assault the victim and inflicted an injury, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the same assertion as the grounds for appeal on the part of the lower court, found the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim in detail under the title “Determination on the Defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion” as stated in its reasoning.

The decision was determined.

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the lower court on the grounds of conviction, the lower court alleged that there was no use of the following circumstances, namely, ① the addressee’s number of text messages sent to the Defendant by the Defendant, i.e., the following circumstances, which could have been revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, but the Defendant was at the police station:

It was found that the message and the Kakao Stockholm message were sent later, and her fingers were low.

In light of the text message and the Kakao Stockholm message on the day of the instant case attached to the result of the victim’s digital evidence analysis on the cell phone, the above conversation appears to have been divided between the Defendant and the victim, and it is difficult for the Defendant to believe the above argument. ② The Defendant also acknowledged at the investigative agency that he was fluoring with the Defendant at the time of the instant case, and even the text message and the Kakakao Stockholm message as seen earlier, the Defendant should have been fluored up to the victim with the victim’s body, and the Defendant’s only fluor, who had been living in his body.”

arrow