2019Gohap53 Violence, Special Violence (Special Intimidation for the Revised Crime)

A person shall be appointed.

Freeboard (Lawsuits) Maternity (Courtrooms) , Maternity (Courtrooms)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

July 15, 2019

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this judgment shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

On June 30, 2018: around 04:0, the Defendant, at around 00, 200, engaged in a dispute on the ground that she drinks with other customers E ( South, 42 years of age) and the victim F (the age 46) who is his/her working on the D restaurant located in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and drinks with other customers, he/she would turn off the victim E., and continuously attracts the victim E with his/her left arms, and continuously attracts the victim E, with his/her left arms, and the victim F. (the age 46), who is a dangerous object on which the table is put on the table.

Accordingly, the Defendant assaulted the Victim F and threatened the Victim E by carrying dangerous things.

2. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel

A. The Defendant does not have the fact that her her sonm with the victim F's her left arms once, and there is no her string. Even if there is a fact that he/she has pusheded the victim F's her her scam with his/her her her her arms, it does not fall under "breath in the crime of assault under the Criminal Act" and constitutes self-defense in the course of setting up against the victim F's assault.

B. The Defendant did not have an intention to harm the victim E, and the Defendant was the victim’s disease. The setting is merely an expression of temporary workers’ emotions.

3. Determination

(a) The point of assault against the victim F;

1) First, as to whether or not the Defendant has lost the victim F’s left arms, the Defendant’s statement was reversed by the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the Defendant was present in this court, and the Defendant’s statement to the effect that he was able to know by means of evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the victim F was in favor of the Defendant, and that the Defendant was able to write down his own arms at this court (Evidence No. 73 of the record), and that the Defendant was able to write down his arms above the elbow. The Defendant again stated in the prosecutor’s re-examination process that the Defendant would have sold his arms, and it is not consistent with the Victim F’s statement on the damaged parts. ② The victim F made an investigation by the police station to the effect that it was difficult for the Defendant to view that the Defendant had sold his arms to the left part of the Defendant’s statement to the extent that the Defendant had not sold his arm’s length and sold his arms outside of the lower court.

2) Next, as to whether or not the defendant committed an assault against the victim F's left side her body, it is difficult to believe that the victim F's statement as to the damaged fact is not sufficiently specific, and the assault in the crime of assault refers to the exercise of unlawful tangible force against human body, and its illegality should be determined by taking into account the purpose and intent of the act, circumstances at the time of the act, the form and type of the act, the existence of suffering from the victim, and the degree thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6800 delivered on September 24, 2009), and even according to the victim F's statement, the victim F when the victim F jums the victim's body were bread with the victim's body as first in the victim's religious quality, and it cannot be seen that the defendant's unlawful attack against the victim's body cannot be seen as the victim's body under Article 70 of the Criminal Act, even if the victim F jumblinged the victim F's body.

B. Special intimidation against victims E

1) In the crime of intimidation, the term “Intimidation” generally refers to notifying a person of harm to the extent that it may cause fear. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require an intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor perceived and citing that the perpetrator informss that such a degree of harm is harmful. However, if the perpetrator’s speech or behavior is merely merely an expression of simple emotional humiliation or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that he/she has no intent to harm in light of surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the act of intimidation or temporary dispersion has no intent to harm. Determination of whether there was such a meaning should be made by comprehensively taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also surrounding circumstances such as the background leading to such act, relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546, Aug. 25, 2006).

2) We examine the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Defendant: (a) the Defendant her fluoral fluoral fluoral bluoral fluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral bluoral blusium; (b) the Defendant brut fluor’s fluoral bluoral bluor’s fluoral bluor’s bluoral bluor’s bluoral bluor’s fluor’s fluor’s bluss blusium; (c) the Defendant b.

(c) Results of the jury verdict (seven persons who are jurors);

00 Not guilty: Seven persons (per day);

4. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case where the proof of crime is insufficient, and thus, is pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the summary of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 58(2)

Judges of the presiding judge only;

Judge Cho Jin-han

Justices Kim Han-chul