(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2021.01.14 2020노82

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) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2021.01.14 2020노82

모욕등

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant did not have made a false statement contrary to the Defendant’s memory, such as the statement Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 8 of the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court deemed that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone constituted the crime of insult, which constitutes the elements of the crime of insult.

The lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is insufficient to conclude it.

However, this part of the crime was committed by the defendant and the injured party in the process of the lawsuit claiming the return of legal reserve of inheritance by dividing them into two parts, and since the F actually speaks that he had worked in the court, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below.

B) The lower court: (a) deemed that there was an intentional perjury on the part of the perjury No. 4 in the annexed crime list in the judgment of the lower court.

It is insufficient to conclude that the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory in the same part No. 5 of the crime sight table.

It is insufficient to conclude this part of the facts charged, but it is erroneous for misunderstanding of facts.

2) The above sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (as to the part Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 8 of the List of Crimes annexed to the judgment of the court below), the Defendant also asserted the same purport in the court below. The court below acknowledged the act identical to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below in full view of the witness B’s legal statement at the court below, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017 A, which corresponds to the facts constituting the crime, the witness examination record at the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 20768, which

The defendant's assertion was rejected.

The principle of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Criminal Procedure Law.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.02.01 2016노3238

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.22 2018노1072

-수원지방법원 2018.06.29 2017노9628

-대전지방법원 2018.12.13 2018노1015

-대전지방법원 2018.11.01 2018노1498