logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.09.09 2018고정662
폭행
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 23, 2018, from around 23:00 to 24:00, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s neck by hand during the dispute with the victim D (the victim’s age 56), who was living together, in the front city B apartment, and the Defendant’s house located in the front city B apartment or C, and with the related person D (the victim’s age 56).

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A photograph of damage;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report investigation results;

1. Relevant Article 260 (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. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The defendant and his defense counsel do not have any assault as stated in the facts charged. Even if there exists such assault, it constitutes self-defense inasmuch as it occurred in the course of the defendant’s escape to the victim and the escape to the toilet to avoid such assault, such as the victim was faced with plastic disease and the face of the defendant.”

Therefore, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the victim testified that he was a witness in this court and was damaged by the defendant as stated in the facts charged, i.e., the main part in comparison with the statement made by the investigative agency is consistent, consistent, without contradiction in light of the context before and after the statement, and credibility, such as credibility, ii) the victim appears to have been treated by the hospital because of such violence committed by the defendant, and iii) the defendant argued that the victim was sealed by the victim to avoid violence in this court, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's act in the crime of this case is sufficiently recognized.

arrow