(영문) 청주지방법원 2021.01.08 2020노496 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2021.01.08 2020노496

폭행

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, who is the offender, was assaulted by the victim E, and the victim took the breath and breath of the Defendant. As such, the Defendant also went beyond the Defendant’s breath in the process of making the breath of the victim’s breath and making the breath, and added the victim until the police took place.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes legitimate act for arresting flagrant offenders.

2. In order to become a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms, requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act in question, reasonableness of the means or method of the act in question, balance between the protection benefit and the benefit of infringement, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1547, Sept. 23, 1986; 98Do2389, Apr. 25, 2000; 203Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and duly examined by evidence, such as the statement of interrogation of the police protocol against the victim E, the defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act because it does not meet the requirements of reasonableness or supplementary nature of means or method.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

① The victim consistently stated that “In the process of dispute with B, the Defendant was able to get her her b and her b to get his her b and her b to get her b, and the Defendant was her b to her b and the arms were divided.

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “,” and that it did not attempt to flee on the spot.

statement.

② The Defendant, first of all, expressed that the victim took the bath of “the head of governance shall do so,” and that he was flobbbling by the Defendant, and that he was only flobbbling of the victim by setting up against it.

Even if the statement of such defendant is based on the statement of the defendant, the defendant intends to flee.

참조판례

-대법원 1986. 9. 23. 선고 86도1547 판결

-대법원 2000. 4. 25. 선고 98도2389 판결

-대법원 2003. 9. 26. 선고 2003도3000 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.05.22 2014노5866

-서울북부지방법원 2013.05.01 2013노271

-서울서부지방법원 2015.09.24 2015노763

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2015.09.22 2015고정149

-전주지방법원 2013.10.11 2013노792