beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.07.03 2014고정539

상해

Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 400,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 20, 2013, around 16:50 on August 20, 2013, the victim E (the age of 31) considered that the defendant who driven the vehicle interfered with the passage of the vehicle driven by the victim and tried to divide the vehicle between the victim's vehicle and the victim's vehicle in front of the defendant's vehicle. The defendant resisted the victim's desire.

Therefore, the defendant, by hand, pushed the victim's timber to the floor, and laid down the victim over the floor, and put the victim into the scopical scopical scopical scopher and scopical scopic scopic s

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court (the purport that the defendant has committed a crime involving the victim's hand);

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The application of statutes to an investigation report (in respect of the submission of an injury diagnosis report);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the illegality of the defendant's assertion against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is excluded since the defendant's act of passive defense is a legitimate act that does not go against the social rules.

According to the evidence revealed, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that the defendant's act of passive defense is not accepted, since there is no evidence that can be known that the defendant attempted to inflict physical harm on the defendant before and after the defendant's abduction of the large truck driven by the victim, which was driven by the victim. After that, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that the defendant's act of passive defense is a passive defense, since there is no evidence that can be known that the defendant tried to inflict physical harm on the defendant.