logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.10 2013고단2657
상해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 07:05, at a drinking house where it is impossible to know the trade name in the new forest Dong in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant held the victim’s face at a drinking time on the ground that the victim, while drinking alcohol together with C and D (34 years of age), she took the victim’s face at around 56 days on the ground that she would speak against C, and took the victim’s face at one time on the head, and took approximately 56 days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness D;

1. Some statements concerning D in the police interrogation protocol;

1. Each photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that the defendant and his defense counsel's face was taken into account, such as the agreement with the victim on the reason of sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant also suffered an injury on the face of the victim, and the defendant's act constitutes "self-defense" and thus, the illegality of the defendant's act constitutes "self-defense."

In this regard, the witness made a statement that D was under the influence of D, and D was under the influence of D, and D was under the influence of harming the Defendant, and that D was under the influence of drinking in order to avoid the assault of the Defendant, but C was well aware that D was under the influence of the Defendant, and E, a drinking house owner, was under the influence of D, but she was under the influence of D, is well aware that D was under the influence of drinking but trying to put the other party under the influence of the alcohol disease.

arrow