logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.28 2013고정1918
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

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

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendants are those who are in general restaurant business "E" in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and around January 12, 2013, Defendant A demanded the victim F (year 43) who is a street cleaners to keep food waste collection in front of his restaurant in front of the above restaurant at around 05:30 on January 12, 2013, and the victim was not the victim at his own expense. The defendant A was in front of the victim's breath and pushed down the part of the victim's breath with his hand, and the defendant B was in combination with this, and the victim's face was in need of medical treatment for about 20 days.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to damaged parts of the F, pictures and written diagnosis of injury;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. and Punishment of Specific Crimes, Article 2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines;

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

1. Defendant A, who made a judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, claimed self-defense to the effect that the victim was committed with assault, such as her scam, and the victim’s breath from the victim’s defense source. However, in full view of the background, method and degree of injury, damage, relationship between the above Defendant and the victim, etc. admitted by each evidence in the judgment, it cannot be deemed that the above Defendant’s act was merely a passive defense to escape from an unfair attack, and it appears that the above act was merely a passive defense to escape from an unfair attack, and thus, the aforementioned assertion

arrow