logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2014.11.13 2014고정82
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 18:00 on July 14, 2013, the Defendants: (a) were the victim F (the age of 65) and the dispute between Defendant D and the victim, and (b) Defendant A was the victim’s hand once, and the part of the victim’s arms was the upper part of the neck owned by Defendant A with the victim’s hand once, and Defendant B was the victim’s hump to the hump; (c) Defendant B was the hump to the victim’s hump; (d) Defendant B was the hump to the victim’s hump; (e) Defendant B was the victim’s hump to the hump; and (e) the victim was the victim’s hump to the hump for about 14 days.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Protocol concerning the suspect interrogation of each of the Defendants

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report and accusation report (No. 13).

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., and Article 2 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defense counsel of the Defendants on the assertion of defense counsel of the Defendants under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of each of the instant orders for provisional payment asserts that the instant crime does not constitute a crime as self-defense or legitimate act.

However, in full view of all the circumstances, including the background, method, degree, and surrounding circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, the Defendants may recognize the fact that the Defendants actively inflicted an injury on the victim beyond the limit of passive resistance. Therefore, the Defendants’ above act cannot be deemed as a legitimate act that does not constitute legitimate self-defense against another person’s unfair infringement, or a violation of the law or social rules.

Therefore, the Defendants’ defense counsel cannot be accepted.

arrow