logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.12.24 2014노666
상해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the victim did not have received dental treatment prior to the assault of the defendant in this case, and that the infection of the defendant existed prior to the assault of the defendant in this case, but considering the following: (a) the state of the victim's dental condition has deteriorated due to the assault of the defendant and the fact that the victim seems to have developed the baby, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, that there was no causation between the defendant's assault and the injury of the victim.

2. Determination

A. A. Around February 8, 2014, around 02:50 on Feb. 8, 2014, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant was the head of F taxi driven by the Victim E (Age 52) in the vicinity of Ulsan-gu C, Ulsan-gu, that “the next victim would go toward the industrial tower route.”

The Defendant expressed the victim’s desire until he arrives at the route of the industrial tower located in Ulsan-gu, Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, the destination of the above taxi, and listened to the victim who stopped the taxi at the route of the above industrial tower, and heard from the victim who stopped the taxi, the victim’s face was calculated once with his left hand by taking the head car of the victim’s head.

As a result, the defendant brought up the victim with a brupt or a flag of a baby requiring treatment for about three weeks.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) stated in the injury diagnosis that “the outline and part of the mouth 41, and 42 of the mouth 41, 42 to the right side of the bad, the mouth spackh and the part of the spacky, and the spackhing of the spackh from the external shock accompanied by the spacky disease; and (b) it is not determined that the judgment of the lower court in charge of the fact inquiry with respect to G medical department “no fact was inflicted on the spacky and treatment before the date of the injury; (c) the spacky’s spacky’s spack and the patient’s spack

arrow