beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant was sentenced to a conviction of four months of imprisonment (Seoul Central District Court 2017Ma9050) on May 9, 2018 on the following criminal facts, and appealed and was sentenced to a conviction of two years of suspended execution (Seoul Central District Court 2018No1375) on July 27, 2018, and was sentenced to a conviction of two years of suspended execution (Seoul Central District Court 2018No1375) on July 27, 2018. The defendant's failure to file a final
On November 22, 2017, the defendant (the defendant in this case) avoided tobacco in the non-smoking area near the station located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seocho-gu, Seoul, the Seocho-gu Office Health Policy and Non-smoking Control Officials A (the plaintiff in this case, 56 years old, the plaintiff in this case) who is requested to present identification cards, while taking a bath, the victim's emotional care is walking at several times, the victim's breast in drinking, the victim's breast in drinking, the victim's breast in drinking, and the victim's breast in drinking at one time, the victim's aftermath of the second part, and at the same time interfere with the legitimate performance of duties by the public official of the Gu office for anti-smoking control.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant committed a tort by assaulting the Plaintiff as in the above basic facts, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 1,520,000 for medical expenses incurred by the Plaintiff, KRW 1,520,00 for future treatment expenses to be disbursed by the Plaintiff, KRW 2,520,00 for the total sum of KRW 7,50,000 for consolation money, and KRW 10,020,000 for delay damages incurred by the Plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant's act of assaulting the plaintiff, who is a public official in anti-smoking control, etc. constitutes a tort, and the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act. 2) Since the defendant's tort committed against the plaintiff was committed during the performance of official duties of the plaintiff who is a public official.