logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.12.06 2017노4817
폭행
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is sufficiently recognized that the defendant at the time had the intent of harming the victim by setting up against the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below, mainly after the occurrence of the defendant's act, found the defendant guilty on the grounds of the circumstances, and sentenced him not guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a crime of assault or violence and the establishment of a legitimate act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the facts charged in this case is the full-time auditor of C in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, who actually operated the said marina, and D is the head of the said marina, and the victim E (57) is the representative of D’s father’s interest.

On November 15, 2016, the victim was in the same business relationship with the defendant who was the representative of the Mart, 2016

F was engaged in business with the acquisition of the feet from F.

around 12:10 on November 16, 2016, the Defendant is the president of the Republic of Korea in the above C Office, and the Defendant must be changed to the head of the Party.

B. B. The victim and D expressed a bath to the victim, “a saved saves”

Accordingly, D has been involved in the loss of D.C.

LGoneone-day mobile phone was gathered to the face of the defendant, and the head of the defendant was teared to tear theme, and the victim was found out of the part of the victim, and he was flabed with the flab, and the victim was flabed with the flab, and the flabing of the victim's flab. In response, the defendant assaulted the victim, such as the victim's flabing the flab and flabing the flab.

B. 1) The lower court, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, deemed that the Defendant’s act of taking the breath of the victim, such as the instant facts charged, was a passive defense to protect himself/herself from the victim’s assault and escape therefrom, and can be permitted in light of social norms.

arrow