logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.02.11 2014노2256
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it can be recognized that Defendant C inflicted an injury on the victim B jointly with Defendant A, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) among the facts charged against the Defendants.

Judgment

There are statements in B, B, and L investigation agencies as evidence consistent with the facts charged in this part of the judgment of the court below. However, it is difficult to believe that B's investigation agencies and court statements in the court below for the following reasons.

B The investigative agency intends to take the Defendants on the part of the Defendant A.

On the contrary, Defendant C used his face one time in drinking, and later Defendant A made a statement to the effect that Defendant C again made his face one time by drinking.

In addition, the court of the court below made a statement to the effect that the defendant A first used for his own care in the court of the court below, and that the defendant C was at the time of his next time, and reversed the statement in the investigation agency.

However, the part on the first time of Defendant A and C seems to be difficult to cause mistake.

B stated at the court of the court below that when Defendant A was on his own part, Defendant C was unable to take his her son's son's son at the time of his son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son'

B, even if the Defendant A was guilty, the investigative agency made a statement to the effect that the Defendant A was not at the time of his injury, and that the Defendant A’s copi was able to easily understand by making a statement to the effect that the Defendant A got her from the time of her own injury.

In addition, the statement of L's investigative agency was used in B when the defendants attempted to board B on the part of the defendant Eul in the course of the defendant Eul's vehicle.

arrow