logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.11.17 2016노585
상해치사
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles about the defendant's injury, and there was no predictability about the occurrence of serious result of the victim's death.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the charge of this case on the ground that the defendant had dolusent intention and predictability. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of death or bodily injury, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below, the defendant argued to the same effect as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that there was an incomplete intention to injure the defendant as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there was also a possibility of predictability as to the occurrence of a serious result of death, based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the court below, and the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of the judgment of the court below and the arguments of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although there are no circumstances to consider, on the other hand, the issue of unfair sentencing, that the Defendant made the death of the victim due to his mistake, and that the Defendant’s bereaved family members do not want the punishment against the Defendant, and that there is no criminal power against the Defendant, etc. However, the crime of this case committed by the Defendant is an apartment security guard under the same circumstances as the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below.

arrow