(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.05.28 2013노2308 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.05.28 2013노2308

상해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim’s right fingers of the victim E, on the part of the victim, for about four weeks of medical treatment. There was no injury on the part of the victim, such as the mouth of the first bones of the right fingers.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The written diagnosis of injury submitted by the victim of the crime of injury in relation to the assertion of mistake of fact is generally considered to have identified the cause of injury based on the victim's statement, and the part and degree of the injury observed and judged by using medical expertise, and it is insufficient to form evidence to directly prove the fact that the injury as stated therein was caused by the criminal act of the defendant. However, in a case where the date and time of the diagnosis of the injury are close to the time and the time of the occurrence of the injury, there are no special circumstances to suspect the credibility of the injury in the process of issuing the written diagnosis of injury, and where the victim's injury part and degree are consistent with the cause and circumstance of the injury alleged by the victim, unless there are special circumstances such as the victim's act of violence from a third party or the fact that the doctor prepared a false written diagnosis of injury is revealed, such diagnosis of injury is sufficient to prove the fact that the injury was caused by the criminal act of the defendant, and the probative value of the injury cannot be dismissed without reasonable grounds.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12728, Jan. 27, 201). The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do12728, Jan. 27, 201). The purport of the following is that the victim incurred the Defendant’s loss from the investigative agency to the lower court, thereby making the Defendant’s loss,

참조판례

-대법원 2011. 1. 27. 선고 2010도12728 판결

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2013.09.11 2013노61

-서울북부지방법원 2019.02.01 2018노1954

-부산지방법원 2013.05.02 2012노3863

-부산지방법원 2020.06.18 2019노4207

-인천지방법원 2014.05.30 2013노2669