logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.11.23 2016고단1782
상해
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 10:50 on May 12, 2016, Defendant A left the victim’s head and arms one time each and two weeks of treatment for the victim, on the ground that the Defendant was in influent relationship with the victim’s father and arms in front of the Fel in Gwangju Northern-gu, and that the Defendant was influent relationship with the victim’s B (the victim’s 30 years of age) and the mother of the victim claimed consolation money against the Defendant.

2. At the same time and time as above 1.3, Defendant B and Si expenses were incurred for the same reasons as above 1.4 years of age, Defendant B and Defendant B suffered damage to the victim’s chest by her hand while pushing the victim’s chest with 4 consecutive hands, and caused damage to the victim’s sallegine and other salves that require treatment for about two weeks of age.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A’s legal statement;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. Damage photographs and CCTV data CDs;

1. Application of each statute on filing of a complaint;

1. Defendants: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Selection of fines

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendant A and his defense counsel’s defense counsel’s assertion on the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Defendant A merely stated that Defendant B, the injured party, was unable to mislead the injured party B while taking a bath to Defendant A, and did not intend to assault the injured party B.

On the other hand, the defendant B and his defense counsel had first reached the face of the defendant B as the victim had reached the face of the defendant B and reached the defendant B. Thus, there was no intention to injure the defendant B in the process of controlling it. The defendant B, who had been pregnant 6 months, was prevented from self-defense in the course of attacking the victim A with mass production.

arrow