logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 거창지원 2018.11.07 2018고단105
상해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim B (B, female, 40 years old, and four) are legal couples.

At around 22:00 on October 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the Defendant’s house located in Spanch-gun C; (b) as a matter of time, the Defendant and the Victim were in possession of the Victim, and (c) transferred to the Korean language, thereby doing so in lieu of the Victim; (d) then, the Victim’s arms seated in front of the chemical was pushed back one time by hand, and then damaged the Victim over the floor; and (e) as the Defendant reported in 112 by fraud and incidental thereto, the Defendant tried to close the Seodaemun and the visit; and (e) continued to have the Victim’s body sealed the Victim’s body on one hand, and caused the Victim’s injury on the fore part of the arms that require approximately two weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness B, E, and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a medical certificate of injury and a photograph of damage (No. 5 times a year);

1. Article 257 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the victim did not have a true will to marry with the defendant, and reported domestic violence falsely by using the fact that the victim was a separate measure for reporting domestic violence, and that the defendant did not assault the victim.

However, according to each of the above evidence, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant's injury was inflicted upon the victim at the time, and all the data submitted by the defendant were examined, but the above judgment did not interfere with.

arrow