beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2017.09.01 2017고정95

상해

Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. On a selective basis of the facts charged:

1. On July 3, 2016, at around 10:30, the Defendant: (a) moved in the ground in the D E-T underground logistics warehouse located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si; (b) even though the victim E (M, 51 years old) who is an employee of the Dong-gu, was deprived of the goods, the Defendant left the said goods; and (c) became subject to the said victim’s clause “A when having laid off the goods” from the said damage; (d) went into dispute, and (e) caused the victim’s losses to be cut off for about five weeks of treatment.

2. On July 3, 2016, at around 10:30, the Defendant: (a) got the victim E, who is an employee of the East Franchi, from the ground in the D E-T underground logistics warehouse located in Seocho-si, Seosan-si, and (b) was at the port of “A, leaving the goods,” and he was at the same time left, despite the fact that the victim E, who is an employee of the East Franchi, fells into the ground; (c) while engaging in a dispute, the Defendant got the victim’s right hand over to the victim, who would be able to boom the victim’s right hand over while doing so; and (d) caused the victim to pluck up the bones of the bones of the victim, such as finger, which requires treatment for about five weeks.

2. According to the records, the victim made a horse dispute with the defendant, and flabeded with flab, and flabeded with the defendant's flab with his left hand. The victim made a statement to the effect that he was injured by plucking, plucking, etc. by plucking, plucking, etc. the victim's blab with his hand and Fifth blabing with the wind that the victim's blabed with his hand.

According to this, the defendant seems to have tried to defend against the victim's assault, and further, he plucked up and plicked a part of his hand.

It is difficult to see that there was an intentional injury to the defendant.

In addition, it is difficult to see the defendant's act as a passive resistance to defend himself from an unfair attack by the victim, and it is reasonable to be allowed to defend himself from a political party or in view of social norms.