logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.10.15 2013고정455
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of five hundred thousand won;

2. 50,000 won where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 28, 2012, around 16:15, the Defendant found the victim D (n, 59 years of age) in E office operated by Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, with F, and was asked the victim to take a bath by telephone, while he was asked the victim and F.

The Defendant, against the Defendant’s fating of the F’s bat, dumped the victim’s fat, and fated the back, and fated the victim over the bottom, and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as dump salt, which requires approximately four weeks’ medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant or D (including substitute part);

1. Some statements made in the police interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. A report on investigation (as to attachment of a medical certificate);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing damage-related photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

3. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant committed an assault against the victim in the course of resisting the violence of the victim, which constitutes legitimate act as a legitimate act, which constitutes legitimate self-defense or passive resistance.

2. The victim unilaterally committed an illegal attack in light of the developments and means of the instant case, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the circumstances at the time of the instant case.

The above defense counsel's assertion is without merit, since it cannot be deemed that the defendant exercised the force only to the extent of passive defense as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from an unlawful attack and escape therefrom.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow