logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.05.14 2015노305
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the diagnosis of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle (not guilty part), and the fact-finding and reply of the E Hospital, it is sufficient to deem that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim. In the same situation as at the time of the collision between the vehicle involved in the accident and the victim, not only the victim but also any third party, caused the danger of life or body.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., which is the primary charge, and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) which is the ancillary

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the suspended sentence and the suspended sentence fine of 300,000 won) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be concluded that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone did not recognize that the victim suffered bodily injury, such as salt, tension, etc. of the horse in need of medical treatment for about two weeks, or that the above injury was caused by the vehicle driven by the defendant. In full view of the distance and speed of the above vehicle at the time of the accident, the victim’s appearance and action immediately after the accident, etc., it cannot be viewed that the operation of the above vehicle by the defendant under social norms would have inflicted bodily harm on the victim or a third party. Thus, the above vehicle of the defendant cannot be viewed as falling under “hazardous goods” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which is the primary charge, and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) and the ancillary charge.

arrow