logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2014노4618
상해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. As to the obstruction of performance of official duties and the damage of property, the defendant tried to send the victim D to a hospital by 119 first aid units, which led the police officers and vagabonds while drinking the victim D, and in the process, the police officers' awareness was reduced, and there was no intention to interfere with the performance of official duties or damage of property.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the police officer called up after receiving a report of his/her father who assaulted the victim D, and the victim injured by the 119 first responder to the hospital, and that the police officer F did not control the defendant, and that he/she inflicted damage on the face of F by assaulting the defendant as stated in the judgment of the court below. The witness F's statement of the court below is not a statement that the defendant actively tried to interfere with the police officer's execution of his/her duties but a statement that prevents him/her from committing any crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and damage because it is merely a statement that prevents him/her from committing any crime of destruction of official duties. Thus, the above defendant's allegation of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant's act of assaulting the defendant's wife on his own, and committed a safafafafafafafafafa, and obstructed the police officer's legitimate performance of duties, the circumstance and degree of damage of the crime in this case, the defendant had the record of having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same crime, and there is no special change in circumstances to determine the sentence differently from the original judgment, and there is no other special reason to determine the sentence differently from the original judgment, the court below's punishment is too too excessive

arrow