logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.09.07 2012고정1169
폭행
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won, and a fine of 700,000 won, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendants are mother and child.

1. At around 10:00 on December 16, 201, Defendant A and the victim: (a) committed an assault, such as searching for defects in the quality of satisfying and satisfying the satisfy; and (b) having the Defendant’s mother, in his hand, her batfy and sating the bat; and (c) having the victim go beyond the Defendant’s bat with his her son’s hand at the above time and place against the said D’s assault, and assaulting the victim, such as taking satfy and sating the satfy, sating the satfy, sating the satfy, and sating the satfy.

2. Defendant B, at around 16:05 on the above day, sought a residence with the victim F (the 60-year-old age), who was the wife of the above D, known that he returned home, as above, from the above residential stairs.

The victim, who opened the door, caused the victim to live in a bridged with the wall and pushed over the floor, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as brain spathy, which requires three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Protocol of examination of the witness against the witness D or F;

1. Application of the injury diagnosis certificate, and the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the standing photographs of suspects;

1. Relevant legal provisions pertaining to criminal facts: Defendant 2 of Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants: Determination of a fine for negligence

1. The Defendants at Workhouse: The Defendant alleged to the effect that his act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act; however, in light of the motive and circumstance leading up to the instant crime and the means and method of committing the instant crime, etc. acknowledged by each of the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as an act of defense against an unfair attack or a legitimate act that can be permitted by social norms, etc., and thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

arrow