logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.01.19 2016고정1340 (1)
상해
Text

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

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 22, 2016, at around 13:10 on August 2, 2016, the Defendant, while engaging in a dispute with the victim C at a new location in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, 106, at the new location of the bank, and C was slicking the head debt of C in response to the defect, such as slicking the head debt and slicking the head debt of C, and caused the injury of the face and slicking the face of which cannot be known.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect C by the police;

1. CCTV photographs;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the act in their holding constitutes a legitimate defense, as an act to defend the attack C.

In order to establish defense by a political party, the act of defense shall be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method, and type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc. of infringement. The act of defense shall also meet the requirements such as legitimacy of motive or purpose, reasonableness of means or method, balance between protection benefit and infringement benefit, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than that of the act.

In light of the background and situation of the occurrence of the instant case, the means and result of each act by the Defendant and the victim, the attitude at the time of the Defendant and the investigative agency of the Defendant and the victim, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the act of the Defendant’s decision at the time committed by the victim was an assault with the intent to attack the victim rather than to defend the victim from an unfair invasion by the victim. Thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a legitimate defense.

We cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and defense counsel

Application of Statutes

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

arrow