logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.08.30 2013노1543
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the defendant did not assault the victim's chest by hand, and the defendant was pushed the victim's chest.

Even if at the time there was no intention to inflict harm on the victim, the defendant's act does not constitute the elements of the crime of assault.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the victim and witness F made consistent from the police to this court, and consistently stated that the defendant committed an assault against the victim's chest as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant stated that he was the victim who attempted to board the elevator before the first floor of the elevator at the time of the police investigation, getting out of the elevator, and was the victim who attempted to board the elevator before the first floor, it can be recognized that the defendant intentionally assaulted the victim's chest as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake

In addition, as long as there was an intentional act of assault against the defendant at the time of assault, whether there was an intentional act or purpose of causing harm to the victim does not affect the establishment of the crime of assault, and therefore there is no reason for the defendant's assertion of mistake

B. As to the assertion on unreasonable sentencing, the Defendant is deemed to have no other history of criminal punishment except for a fine imposed once in the year 1995 on the violation of the Road Traffic Act. However, the Defendant’s denial of the instant crime and did not reflect the mistake, such as the Defendant’s agreement with the victim, etc., and the motive and background of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s situation after the commission of the crime.

arrow