(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.05.28 2018고정11

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.05.28 2018고정11

폭행

Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) taken the entrance of D at around 11:40 on January 18, 2017, at the entrance of D in C, the victim taken off the entrance of E (the age of 44) and returned to the match; (b) the victim was aboard.

The victim forcedly opened a driver's seat in the low string, and the victim tried to shut down the door of the driver's seat, but she forced her mother and child used by the victim by her body, and assaulted the victim, such as the victim's sound, her article, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the defendant or F;

1. On-site CCTV closure photographs;

1. On-site CCTV CDs (the defendant and his/her defense counsel does not constitute assault if the defendant follows his/her mother and child in order to verify the victim's face;

However, the crime of assault refers to the exercise of physical or mental pain on a person's body, and it does not necessarily require any contact with the victim's body. The illegality should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and intent of the act, circumstances at the time of the act, the form and type of the act, the existence and degree of pain inflicted on the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9302, Oct. 27, 2016). In light of the fact that the defendant forced the mother of the victim to check the victim's face, and the defendant was deprived of her mother in order to confirm the victim's face, while the victim avoided it several times, and did not get out of her mother while trying to do so, it can be deemed an unlawful use of force against the victim.

In addition, the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act because he/she has taken a photograph of the victim without permission of the defendant. However, in light of the situation at the time of the defendant's assault to the victim, degree of assault, etc., the defendant's act is a legitimate defense.

참조판례

-대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2016도9302 판결

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노3412

-서울북부지방법원 2021.02.17 2020노1115

-춘천지방법원 2021.01.22 2020노414

-서울동부지방법원 2018.11.30 2018고정572

-수원지방법원 2018.06.01 2017노9180