logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.22 2019노1324
상해등
Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to injury to AB and damage to property (legal scenarios) of the victim AB, and the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense. 2) The Defendant’s act of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defluence and misunderstanding of legal principles) against the victim B constituted a violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defluence and misunderstanding of legal principles) against

(In fact, the text message adopted by the court below as evidence is inadmissible because it is merely a screen or a photographic screen after capturing a mobile phone.

(No. 3) There is no fact that the Defendant was at the time of each injury to the victim B (a factual error). B) The punishment (a fine of KRW 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

2. We examine ex officio the determination.

The first, second, and third judgments were rendered against the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments, and the court decided to hold the above appeal cases together with other decisions.

The crimes of the first, second, and third trials against the defendant should be sentenced to a single sentence in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act due to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the above judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still judged by this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal as seen above.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below (in particular, police statements by AB) that the defendant had committed the victim AB, and thus, the defendant's self-defense is recognized.

arrow