(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2014.06.13 2014고정71

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) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2014.06.13 2014고정71

상해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Around 15:00 on August 14, 2013, the Defendant indicted the Defendant for the crime of inflicting an injury on the victim, based on the victim E (the age of 61) and the victim E (the age of 61) monthly rent at the entrance of the C apartment at Mapopopo City, on the 15:00, on the ground of the fact that he/she had a dispute with the Mapobro, with the two hand, and caused a loss to the victim, which requires five weeks of treatment. On the other hand, the Defendant charged the Defendant for the crime of causing an injury on the part of the victim, based on the victim E (the age of 61) and the written diagnosis of two weeks of injury prepared by the doctor G.

However, in light of the following statements made by G in this Court: “At the time of October 14, 2013, in view of the condition of E’s pawn, it is difficult to recognize that G was due to the Defendant’s act, in light of the following statements, that “as at the time of October 14, 2013, it was lost by attaching a tag to the ging, but the ging part did not seem to have long, and that the ging part would have been cut, and that the diagnosis was conducted based on E’s statement.”

Therefore, it is found guilty only for the part causing the victim with the injury of 3 weeks.

In order to provide medical treatment, the injury was caused by the spathal spathy, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Part of statement E in the second police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written diagnosis of injury to E prepared by the F of a doctor;

1. According to the evidence in the judgment, such as CCTV output screen, CCTV CD (each legal statement of witness E and F, CCTV CD, etc., the Defendant’s injury of this case is recognized. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s act of this case constitutes self-defense, but the illegality of the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as self-defense in light of the circumstances where the Defendant committed the instant crime, the degree of injury to the victim, etc., and thus, the above assertion is rejected).

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime;

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.06.13 2013고정2725

-서울동부지방법원 2013.01.30 2012고단3247

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.05 2015나54924

-인천지방법원 2015.04.23 2014노3685

-청주지방법원 영동지원 2020.04.23 2019고단198