logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.09.26 2019노1975
상해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the portion of detention among the facts charged of mistake of facts in the instant case, the Defendant did not have any intention to detain the victim, and the Defendant did not have expressed an explicit intention to refuse to dismiss the victim, such as getting off the vehicle from the vehicle, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this portion, despite having to be pronounced not guilty, has erred

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of confinement is a crime that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a specific area with the freedom of action as the protected legal interest of the person’s protection. The essence of confinement is to restrict the freedom of action, and there is no restriction on the means and method of restricting the freedom of action, and it is neither tangible nor intangible nor prohibited. The deprivation of the freedom of action in confinement does not necessarily require a complete deprivation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do945 delivered on April 25, 2003, etc.). The court below duly adopted and investigated the following circumstances, namely, ① at the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below, the victim stated consistently to the effect that the defendant was unable to drive a vehicle while driving the vehicle on the part of the vehicle, with the knowledge that he would not have been able to do so, because he would have been able to do so, she would not do so, and she would have her at the time she would come to her to her flock with her flock, and her flock with her flock," and ② at the prosecutor’s office, the defendant stated to the effect that “I would have come to her flock against the will of the victim, and what she would be seen to have come to her flock with her flock,” and that “I would like to make a statement in flock with her son in question.”

arrow