logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.28 2014노5055
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts by Defendant A did not see the victim’s injury and drinking, and Defendant B did not see the victim’s drinking only when the victim had flicked with balle.

B. The Defendants did not assault the victim, and only did the victim’s passive act of defense against Defendant B’s non-discriminatory assault.

Therefore, the Defendants’ act constitutes legitimate act or self-defense.

C. In light of the fact that the Defendants were the most passive defense agents, and that Defendant B only committed the most passive defense acts, and that Defendant B suffered serious injury due to the victim’s assault, namely, eight weeks in need of personality and conduct, six weeks in need of internal administration, and four weeks in need of dental administration, etc., the lower court’s fine (Defendant A’s fine of KRW 500,000 and Defendant B’s fine of KRW 700,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the arguments at the trial court, the defendants Eul suffered from the victim's face twice as drinking, and the defendant Eul suffered from damage to the victim's reputation during about two weeks of treatment by drinking after harming the victim's face. The facts charged in this case are found to be fully convicted, and the defendants' act is deemed to have the nature of attack at the same time as defense, and it cannot be deemed to be merely a passive resistance to escape from the other party's unfair attack. Thus, the judgment of the court below to share this conclusion is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the defendants' assertion in this part is not acceptable.

① The initial statement of a witness who reported the instant fighting in 112 is made.

arrow