(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.19 2016고정3323

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.19 2016고정3323

폭행

Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 27, 2016, around 18:20 on April 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) taken the victim F (53) vehicle on the street in front of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DE Bank “F (53 Do)” on a mobile phone without permission, and (b) plucked, plucked, plucked, etc. of both arms of

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police officer against the defendant or G;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of CCTV CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (the crime of this case was committed in the process of demanding the defendant to remove pictures taken by the victim to find out the contact address and address of the president of the private bank in the workplace, etc., and the cause of the crime is limited to the extent that the victim provided the cause, the degree of the assault was prevented from driving the two arms behind the victim, and there was no criminal history against the defendant), and the defendant and his defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion as to the defendant and defense counsel's assertion. The defendant's act is intended to restrain the defendant who photographs the government cars to obtain personal information, such as contact address and address of the workplace company, and it does not violate social rules, and thus constitutes a justifiable act. However, the defendant's act does not appear to be reasonable, and it is appropriate to consider that the defendant's act has a means or method of urgency or any other means or method without any other means or method.

Therefore, it cannot be seen that illegality is excluded as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.11.02 2017고정780 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.25 2017고정1064

-의정부지방법원 2016.06.23 2016고정801

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.31 2016고정3673

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.07 2017고정2870