(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.01.23 2019노1353 | 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) 전주지방법원 2020.01.23 2019노1353

특수폭행

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the consistent statement by the victim as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant was the victim of the steel file with the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against the Defendant and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows (the reasons for the judgment in multiple ways).

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, on the grounds that ① the statement made by the victim (D) that the Defendant was the victim of the scrap metal who was the victim of the scrap metal and was the victim of the scrap metal was hard to believe in light of the statements made by the victim (D) in conflict with the other E; (b) insofar as the act of the Defendant committed on the middle floor of the victim and himself was not consistent with the person who was the victim, it is difficult to view the act of the Defendant as an exercise of tangible power that inflict physical and mental pain on the body of the victim; and (c) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was not possessed by the Defendant but at the original site of the case, it cannot be deemed as an act of assaulting the victim’s ties after the Defendant was the witness.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s judgment, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts that the Defendant committed the same act as the facts charged, which constitutes “special assault” under Articles 261 and 260(1) of the Criminal Act.

1) In light of the consistent statement of the defendant and the corresponding E’s statement in the court of original instance as in the judgment of the court below, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that only the victim’s statement was directly the victim’s person who made the steel file.

However, not only the statements of the victim, but also the statements of the defendant and E.

참조조문

-형법 제260조 제1항

-형법 제261조

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2019.09.18 2019고정48

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2020.02.19 2019고단731

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.12.14 2017노393

-대구지방법원 2015.04.24 2014노2145

-의정부지방법원 2013.07.11 2012노2370