logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.01 2016고합781
감금치상
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On March 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 21:50 on March 29, 2016, the Defendant: (b) had the victim D (the 30-year-old age) who had a relationship with the victim while putting the victim D (the 30-year-old age) into a motor vehicle for the Empt; and (c) had the victim hedging near F.

It means the demand, but the demand was rejected and continued.

On March 29, 2016, around 22:26, the Defendant: (a) opened a door to a car near H located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G and opened a car at a rapid speed from about 700 meters to prevent the victim from departing from a car; and (b) thereafter, the Defendant set the car on the dial road at the speed of about 700 meters; and (c) left the vehicle by driving away the victim’s body to get out of the car.

As a result, the defendant detained the victim, and caused the victim to suffer injury such as salt dump, tensions, etc. in need of treatment for about two weeks.

2. The crime of bodily injury resulting from confinement is an aggravated crime, and should have a substantial relation between the act of confinement and the result of the bodily injury. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the trial, the act of confinement by the accused committed an injury to the victim, such as salt, tensions, etc., which requires two weeks’ medical treatment as to the facts charged in the instant case.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

A. The fact that the victim’s injury to the victim (Evidence 24 pages of evidence) and the medical records (Evidence Record 47,48 pages) are stated as follows: “The victim was faced with an accident of repeated drinking and stopping on March 29, 2016 while going to get off from the vehicle, and thereby, there was an injury to the base base and tension of the drilling requiring two weeks medical treatment.”

B. In such a case, the victim was hospitalized at the hospital in this Court by reason of a serious traffic accident that occurred at least twice before the instant case.

arrow