beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The Defendants respectively.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On May 8, 2015, Defendant A met with the victim B (52 tax) who drinks alcohol from around 16:30 to around 14:00 on a 233 chip as Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and from around 14:00 on the same day.
The victim has been able to see this Chewing
The term “the victim’s face” refers to “the victim’s face has been taken several times by drinking the head with his hand, and the victim’s face has taken many times, such as suckbucks, bucks, shoulders, etc., which require treatment for 28 days between the victim and 28 days.
2. At the same time and place as the above paragraph 1, Defendant B 1 saw the victim’s head once with the hand floor, blicked the victim’s head once with the hand floor, clicked three times with the hand floor, walked the blick, walked the chest on one occasion with the hand floor, walked the blick, walked the chest on the part of the driver’s house, walked the blick, walked the blick on the part of the driver’s house, and flick on the part of the driver’s house, and 14 days with the victim’s eye in need of treatment for 14 days.
Summary of Evidence
[Defendant A]
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. The witness G and each legal statement in B;
1. Medical certificate [Defendant B]
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each legal statement of a witness A and G;
1. The defendant B and his defense counsel asserts that the act of the defendant B is merely a passive resistance to protect himself from the assault of the defendant A and thus constitutes a legitimate defense.
In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was at the first place with the intent of attacking one another rather than with the intent of attacking the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was at the same time and at the same time with the nature of the act of attack, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). However, according to the evidence of the judgment, the fact that the defendant B first committed the defendant A, and the defendant A was at the time of the defendant B, and the defendant A was at the time.