logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.13 2016노69
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not aware of the victim’s face by drinking.

The injury suffered by the victim was caused by the victim's act of getting his face on the street lamps around the victim's own street or the bus stop pole after cutting down his flaps by cutting down his flaps.

B. The punishment of 1 Sentencing (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is not acceptable, and the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is sufficiently convicted.

1) Unless there are exceptional cases where maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is deemed significantly unfair, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment.

The victim suffered an injury by drinking from the defendant during the period from the investigative agency to the court of first instance.

As stated, it is consistent and specific to believe that its content is consistent and specific.

2) Even if the victim’s left side images of harming the victim’s snow appear to have string off the snow due to drinking, etc. like the victim’s statement, and it does not seem that the victim’s face was taken on the street lamps or bus stop pole as alleged by the Defendant.

3) The F witness of the instant fighting also took the face of the victim who had been faced by the Defendant on the left side of the fighting team several times, and “the other eye will see the other eye.”

“.....”

was stated.

4) The Defendant’s statement on the assertion that the injured party had self-harm is consistent is consistent.

arrow