beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.08.27 2017고정585

폭행

Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person operating a “C cafeteria” in the B market in leisure city, and the victim D (ma) is a person operating the “E” in the said market.

On August 28, 2017, at around 20:48, the Defendant, while speaking for the time to close the door of the victim and the market in front of the F cafeteria in the above market, was pushed back once again with the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the witness D’s statutory statement legislation;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act constitutes legitimate defense or legitimate act and thus the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim was employed as a staff member in charge of the opening and closing of the market entrance door, etc. around January 2017.

In response, the victim seems to have the authority to close the market entrance at the time of the instant case, and ② the victim was in office to notify G operating the store to close the store in the vicinity of the Defendant’s store, and the defendant who was in the next place of the dispute while making a request G to do so, also went against the dispute, and ③ immediately before the Defendant assaulted the victim, the victim directly exercised his/her authority to the customers who visited the Defendant or the Defendant’s store.

In full view of the fact that it is not visible, the defendant is the defendant.