logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.09.14 2017고정1677
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On June 18, 2017, the Defendant and D around 17:45, around the first elevator of the F church in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant were in dispute with the issue of dismissal pastor lawsuit, and the Defendant took the head debt of the victim G (the age of 39) in his/her hand, took the head debt of the victim G (the age of 39), took the head debt of the victim as a drinking, and D was in his/her hand.

As a result, the defendant, together with D (Suspension of Prosecution on the same day), inflicted injury on the victim, such as cerebral flady which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. A CD in the mobile phone shooting;

1. A photograph of a CCTV course;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 2 (2) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. for Criminal Facts, Article 2 of the Act on the Selection of Punishment of Violences, etc., Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which costs of lawsuit

1. The Defendant alleged that the injured party, in order to defend the Defendant’s chest when he was drinking the Defendant’s chest, was proflating the Defendant’s head by proflating her fingers into the victim’s head, but there was no intention of assault since he did not assault the Defendant’s head.

D was late to the site of the case, and the defendant and the victim were removed from them, and they did not assault the victim.

Even if the defendant's act constitutes violence, it is justified as it constitutes legitimate act or legitimate defense.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court as to the argument that the defendant did not assault the victim, and that D only made a speech, the victim was suffering from the investigative agency to the court and was drinking the victim's head, and D, who was the defendant, also the victim.

arrow