logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2015.10.08 2015고정70
상해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On 05:50 on 24, 2014.24. 05:50 on 19. 05:50 on the front side of the C building, the Defendant: (a) faced the victim’s neck from the victim D (the age of 38); (b) laid down the victim’s knife with knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife

Summary of Evidence

1. A witness D's legal statement (a witness is believed to make a consistent statement from an investigative agency to this court because he/she has consistently made the fact of damage);

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of the investigation report (Attachment of CCTV images on the C-CCTV) - Chapter 3 of the Act and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act argues that the illegality is excluded since the defendant suffered bodily injury from the victim and the victim was arrested in the act of committing an act of committing an offense in violation of the duty to escape.

According to the evidence mentioned above, it is acknowledged that the victim was killed by the defendant and left the scene, that the defendant committed an act such as cutting down the victim, that the defendant did not take over or did not take over to the police after the victim committed such act. According to the above facts, the defendant did not merely have tried to arrest the victim as a flagrant offender by suppressing the victim's resistance against the escape defect, but did not harm the victim. Thus, the defendant's assertion that he arrested the flagrant offender is not accepted.

arrow