logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.21 2016고정1607
폭행
Text

Defendant

B The defendant A shall be punished by a fine of two million won, and the defendant A shall be punished by a fine of seven hundred thousand won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant B, around December 22, 2015, at around 22:50, the Defendant, located in the front corridor of the six-story apartment of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, G apartment of 412 to the lower floor, was in dispute as a noise problem between the victim H and the lower floor, and the Defendant, in his hand, suffered bodily injury, such as thale, thale, where the head of the victim was taken one time and six times of face, requiring treatment for approximately 21 days.

2. Defendant A, at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph (1), abused the victim’s cell phone that was cited in his/her hand against the victim I’s violence, and assaulted the victim, by hand, with the victim’s clocks, and the victim’s clocks, etc., with the victim’s clocks.

Summary of Evidence

(Defendant B)

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The complaint (A) and a written statement (A);

1. A written diagnosis of injury (A) and his wife photograph (Defendant A);

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Defendant A who choose a fine: Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Defendant A who choose a fine: Selection of a fine; Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendant A’s assertion of legitimate defense by Defendant A of the Criminal Procedure Act is merely a passive defensive act to escape from Defendant B’s assault, and thus, Defendant A’s legitimate defense is justifiable. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that Defendant A’s act constitutes a legitimate defense for the defense of either party, since the Defendants acknowledged the facts of assault by both parties, and the act of attack and defense was committed simultaneously, as the act of attack and defense was conducted, and the act of defense was conducted simultaneously, and it does not constitute a legitimate defense for the defense of either party. Defendant A’s act satisfies the legitimate defense requirement.

Since there are no data to be seen, Defendant A’s assertion is difficult to accept.

arrow