logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.09 2016노992
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

Defendant

In addition, the appeal filed by the person who requested the medical care and custody is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part 1 of the case in this case is true that the defendant and the victim's face under the medical care and custody applicant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") were taken once, but the victim did not have any injury that requires approximately four weeks of treatment.

2) The Defendant, misunderstanding the legal doctrine, continuously suspended a human body experiment during several years from the injured party, and urged the victim to investigate into the human body. Such an act constitutes a legitimate defense.

B. The Defendant is not physically and mentally disabled and thus does not constitute a person subject to care and custody.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's part 1 of the case, it can be acknowledged that the victim suffered bodily injury, such as the cutting of internal walls and internal walls requiring medical treatment for about four weeks as stated in the judgment below. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant found the victim according to his own decision that he was suffering from human body tests even if the victim was not directly involved prior to the crime of this case, and then committed the crime of this case, and the above determination by the defendant was based on the mental fission of the defendant.

In light of these circumstances, at the time of committing the instant crime, there was an unreasonable infringement on the legal interests of the Defendant or others.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the defendant's act constitutes legitimate defense.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the part of the medical care and custody case, the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, appears to have a mental disorder, such as overwork, damage, etc., due to a mental disorder.

arrow