상해
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
At around 16:30 on September 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) distributed advertising leafletss with the permission of the said apartment residents; and (b) reported and collected in front of the said apartment in front of the Daegu North-gu C apartment, Daegu-gu, the Defendant thought that the victim D (hereinafter referred to as 40 years of age) carrying the leaflets on the vehicle, and attached the advertising leaflets on the apartment building, without permission, by entering the apartment building; (c) and (d) decided by the Defendant as the police box, and decided that the victim’s shoulders were attached to the vehicle, but the victim’s shoulders were cut down with the victim’s refusal to receive approximately two weeks of medical treatment.
Summary of Evidence
1. Legal statement of witness D;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;
1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;
1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the crime of this case occurred in the course of arresting the victim in the act of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and constitutes a justifiable act.
However, a flagrant offender who commits an offense punishable by a fine not exceeding KRW 50,000,00 may be arrested as a flagrant offender only when the offender’s residence is unclear (Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Any unauthorized display of advertising materials suspected of committing an offense at the time of the instant case requires the punishment of a fine not exceeding KRW 100,000,00,00 or a minor fine (Article 3(1)9 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act), and the victim’s residence is evident and fails to meet the requirements for arrest of a flagrant offender.
In addition, since the defendant's act was beyond simply arresting the victim or stopping the escape, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate act.
Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.