logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.02.08 2017고정1223
상해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 27, 2017, at around 20:54, the Defendant: (a) in front of the D cafeteria in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, brought a dispute with the victim E (48 years old) due to female-friendly circumstances; (b) on the ground that the Defendant was waiting for the victim’s wife to know the victim’s unknownness, the Defendant sustained the victim’s breath part of the frame of the body that requires approximately four weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (to telephone conversations of a shote) and investigation report (Attachment of E Disabled photo);

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts to the effect that the defendant's act of bating the victim's bat and bating the victim's bats does not constitute a crime by blocking illegality as a legitimate defense.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant can be found to have inflicted injury on the victim as stated in the facts of the crime, and the defendant appears to have suffered more number of assault from the victim, but the defendant actively asserted against the victim and inflicted injury on the victim as stated in the facts of the crime, etc., the above act by the defendant, including the intent of attack, which goes beyond passive defensive acts, cannot be deemed to constitute legitimate defense.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and defense counsel.

arrow