logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.09.20 2017노1033
특수상해등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the following circumstances revealed by the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the prosecutor, i.e., ① the Defendant consistently made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “At a L restaurant located in Bosung-gun K from April 18, 2016 to April 01:00 of the following day, the Defendant 3 C in the week 13 in the city of Bosung-gun K, and driven from the above restaurant parking lot to 55 won in the city of 19:00,000, at the same time, the Defendant made a statement to the same effect at the investigative agency.” The Defendant’s statement to the same effect as the investigation agency.

In full view of the fact that the defendant's statement in the court below's court of original instance is not reliable, and that the defendant's statement in the court of original instance's court's witness F's court to the effect that the defendant's statement corresponds to the defendant's statement in the court of original instance is hard to believe because the defendant's statement in the court of original instance is insufficient, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, but the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order 200 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On April 19, 2016, the Defendant was driving MM7 car under the influence of alcohol content of about 25km from the L cafeteria parking lot located in Bosung-gun K to the 55k-ro, Hacheon-si, Hacheon-ro, Hacheon-ro, Hacheon-si, to the 19-ro, Hacheon-si, the Defendant was driving a MM7 car under the influence of alcohol content of blood.

(2) The lower court’s determination is based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

arrow