logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.16 2015고정1242
상해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On February 4, 2015, the Defendant, as the head of the convalescent Management Team, committed assaulting the injured party E ( South and 48 years old) for the purpose of obstructing the movement of the sick room in the sick room within 407 in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on the grounds that he was the head of the convalescent Management Team on February 11, 2015, and caused the injured party to undergo medical treatment for 14 days, such as the care patient E (the remaining and the aged 48 years old), one time, and one time for the breast.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim committed an act of disturbance, such as destroying the door of the sick room, which is disputed with the prime director and the staff of the sick room, and the officer and staff of the above sick room did not control the victim, and requested the defendant to contact with the victim. At the time when the defendant arrives in the sick room, the victim was committing an act of disturbance, such as displaying stick and disputing with the prime director and the staff, etc., and the defendant prevented the victim from committing the above act by putting the victim's hand, and the victim was the victim's standing.

It is recognized that the defendant who caused the loss has placed the victim's losses.

According to the above facts, the above act of the defendant as the head of the management team of the above hospital constitutes a legitimate act that is reasonable in terms of social norms as a means of resistance to protect hospital employees, etc. from the abuse of the victim's illegal tangible power, and thus, is thus dismissed.

3. In conclusion, the instant facts charged constitute a crime and thus, the Defendant was acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the Defendant cannot obtain the Defendant’s consent due to his/her absence at the sentencing date. Thus, the public notice of the judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act does not constitute a crime.

arrow