(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2015.10.15 2015고정153

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2015.10.15 2015고정153

상해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 09:33, as the owner of “ hotel D” in Seosan City, caused the victim F (5 years of age) who is an employee E who is claiming the right of retention of the above building, to suffer damage to the victim’s head on the wall of the above building on the ground that the victim F (5 years of age) who is an employee E who is claiming the right of retention of the said building had written the letter “in the event of the exercise of the right of retention” with the Scar presses, on the wall of the above building, and caused the victim to suffer from the victim’s head one to two times by walking and drinking the victim’s head one time; and (b) caused damage to the victim’s head on the part of the hand, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of F;

1. Violence, video CDs;

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

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts that, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant only sealed the body of the victim by intending to write presses on the wall of his own building and did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged, and that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act by means of protecting his own property rights.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented prior to the determination, the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury by exercising violence on the victim as stated in the facts constituting an offense can be acknowledged.

In addition, if the defendant asserts the right of retention on his own building, and the victim, who is an employee of E, uses a bodily injury to the victim as stated in the facts of crime on the ground that he written an article informing the victim that he is in the exercise of the right of retention on the outer wall of the building, the act of the defendant is not reasonable and complementary.

참조조문

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2014.02.21 2013고정1585

-수원지방법원 2014.05.14 2013고정3589

-수원지방법원 2020.01.16 2019고단549

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2018.10.04 2018고정64

-인천지방법원 2017.05.18 2016고정3299