(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.12.18 2014고정1068

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) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.12.18 2014고정1068

폭행

Text

A fine of KRW 300,00 shall be imposed on a defendant. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 7, 2014, around 11:45, the Defendant: (a) at a medical device sales store operated by the victim E (the 52-year-old) of the victim E (the 52-year-old) located in Goyangyang-gu C; (b) at the time of refusal, the Defendant demanded the victim to refund in cash the wheel chairs for the prevention of the wheel chairs that he purchased with the victim; (c) but was in a dispute with each other as the victim refused to refund it; (d) the victim was fluored with the breath of the part in need of medical treatment for about 10 days by killing the Defendant’s breath with his fladle, and then flading the flab, etc. of the part in need of medical treatment. In doing so, the Defendant abused the victim by fluoring the bat of the victim’s flaps.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the victim's victim E, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that this constitutes a legitimate act as a passive resistance, since they merely set up against E's assault.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim was a trial expense for the same reasons as the facts stated in the crime in the judgment of the defendant and the victim, and the victim first dumpeded in the dispute, and the defendant also dumpedd the bump of the defendant, against this, and the defendant was also the victim's bump impairment and sump of the part, but the victim was also the victim as soon as possible. (The victim stated that the defendant was able to bump the bump to the extent that fump cannot be fump).

In light of the situation at the time when the above facts were revealed and the intensity of dubial, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act constituted an attack against the victim beyond the extent of mere resistance against the attack of the victim or constituting a legitimate act for defense.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act of the corresponding Article of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense.

참조조문

-형법 제260조 제1항

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2016.10.20 2016노1031

-광주지방법원 2018.11.15 2017고정1039

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2013.08.28 2012고정692

-수원지방법원 2019.07.04 2018고정2074

-의정부지방법원 2013.04.11 2012노2547