logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.11.10 2016노313
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by A, B, D and Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and D (the assertion of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) 1 do not have any assaulting the victim’s name in distress. Defendant D’s demand to return the victim’s name to the person in distress is not an exercise of a tangible force to recognize the crime of assault. Moreover, Defendant D did not have any fact leading the victim’s name in distress in order to escape from the scene. Defendant D merely expressed the victim’s name in distress by preventing a conflict between the victim’s name in mind and the Defendant’s name in fear of the conflict between the victim’s name in mind and the Defendant, and thereby preventing the victim’s name in distress. 2) Even if Defendant D intended to prevent the victim from leaving the scene of the victim’s name in distress, it is recognized that Defendant D was deprived of the victim’s name in mind.

Even if the court below erred as follows. A) In light of the above behavior pattern, its continued time, response of the victim, etc., it is difficult to view Defendant D’s act as an exercise of tangible force that causes physical and mental pain to the victim’s name in mind. (B) Even if such act is deemed as an exercise of tangible force against the victim’s name in mind, Defendant A and D did not have an intent to commit a crime by using mutual awareness of or mutual consent to commit a crime, and thus, it is unreasonable to punish Defendant A and D as a joint assault.

Article 260(1) of the Criminal Code is a matter to be applied.

C. Each assault against the defendant A and D's nameless wounded shall not be punished against the victim's will in favor of the victim.

However, even if the instant case was widely known through the media, it should be deemed that the victim’s name-free person expressed his/her intent not to be punished because the victim did not report the said Defendants.

Therefore, as to each of the above assaults, public prosecution should be dismissed.

(b).

arrow