logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.24 2013고정5958
상해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 21, 2013, at around 19:45, the Defendant found his wife's debt in front of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Street, etc., and was in front of the victim D(38 years of age) who was the wife, and was in front of the victim D(38 years of age), the Defendant sustained the victim's breast part of the victim's chest once tight, pushed the victim with his arms, pushed the part of the blue with the blue blue, thereby causing about two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Protocol of examination of the witness of this court concerning D;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol regarding D;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that the defendant only carried the part of the defendant's arms with the victim's arm's length in order not to get the defendant's breath and pushed away, which constitutes self-defense to defend his body against the victim's assault. However, according to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant is acknowledged to have committed an act identical to the facts charged against the victim with the victim's intent of attack during the time in which the victim was in sight, and in light of the motive, circumstance, form, etc. of the assault, it cannot be viewed as self-defense to defend unfair infringement of his legal interests. Thus, the above argument is not accepted.

arrow