logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.24 2018고정2072
폭행치상
Text

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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 14:00 on January 19, 2018, the Defendant argued that the victim C (the age of 38) passed and passed the Defendant’s speech on the victim’s work attitude, and that he did not dispute with the victim. On the other hand, the victim’s chest was tightly damaged by the victim’s use of breath, and assaulted the victim’s breath and breath, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as external shock on the treatment days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses C and D each testimony;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the details of health insurance and medical care benefits, such as a complaint, a certificate of medical record, a copy of medical opinion, a summary report, a medical opinion, a medical opinion, a field photograph, a health examination report, a injury diagnosis report;

1. Relevant Articles 262 and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 334(1) of the victim's Act) (Article 334(1) of the victim's Act (Article 334(1) of the victim's act of violence against the defendant, arguing that the victim was receiving medical treatment by filing an appeal for a pain pain certificate at the police hospital on January 30, 2018, the victim was diagnosed at E Hospital on March 2, 2018, and was conducted by F Hospital on March 20, 2018 (Evidence of 68 pages of evidence record, there was no ground for such injury to be caused by pathy, and there was no evidence related to the fact that there was no medical care benefits of the victim prior to the medical care benefits of the victim. In light of the fact that there

In addition, the defendant argues that his act occurred by dumbling the flaps and spreading them, which constitutes self-defense, but according to witness C and D's testimony, the victim dumbling away from the defendant, and dumbling with the defendant.

arrow