logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.09.25 2013고정1592
상해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 5, 2013, at around 09:20 on May 5, 2013, the Defendant got the victim E (mae 74 years of age) in front of the Dart in Gwangju Northern-gu, by putting the Defendant over, made the victim’s body over the victim’s upper floor by pushing the victim’s body, and caused the victim’s kne-free kne’s kne-free febage and damage to the glare part, etc. in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. CCTV video CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the crime of this case is merely a passive act of resistance against the defendant's assault against the defendant, and thus, it is not unlawful as a legitimate act.

In light of the above evidence, prior to the crime of this case, the victim saw the breath of the defendant, saw the defendant's breath by double hand, and put the defendant's breath on the defendant's bridge in the situation where the victim lost balance, and until then, the defendant was found not to have committed any harmful act against the victim. However, according to the above evidence, the defendant was found to have committed the above act of recording the crime under the control of the victim, such as the above crime, and it cannot be viewed as self-defense or legitimate act. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

arrow