2016 Highly Injury caused by confinement

A

Maximum (Public prosecution) and stuffs (public trial)

Law Firm (LLC) B

Attorney C

February 1, 2017

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On March 29, 2016, around 21:50, the Defendant, in the vicinity of the New-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, brought about a dispute with the victim of the victim D (the 30-year old-old-old-gu) who was living in the Empt car, and the victim was in the vicinity of F, and the demand was made, but the demand was rejected and continued.

On March 29, 2016, 22:26 around 20:26, the Defendant opened a door to the H adjacent road located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and proceeded with a car at a rapid speed from about 700 meters to prevent the victim from getting out of the vehicle. The Defendant left the vehicle at a speed of about 700 meters on the right side of the road to stop the vehicle, and then left the victim to get out of the vehicle.

As a result, the defendant detained the victim, and caused the victim to suffer injury such as salt, tension, etc. in the trend requiring a treatment for about two weeks.

2. Whether the crime of causing bodily injury is established;

The crime of injury resulting from confinement requires a proximate causal relationship between the act of confinement and the result of injury as a result of the examination. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the examination, it is difficult to readily conclude that the act of confinement by the accused committed an injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc., that requires two weeks’ medical treatment as stated in the instant facts charged.

A. The fact that "the injured party was able to get off from the vehicle on March 29, 2016 in the medical certificate of injury to the injured party (Evidence Nos. 24) and the medical records (Evidence Nos. 47,48), and that the injured party was faced with a repeated accident of driving and stopping, and thereby, the injury was caused by the climatic base and tension in need of two weeks of medical treatment."

B. However, in this court, the victim stated that "the victim had been hospitalized in the hospital by being subject to a large traffic accident twice before the instant case. At the time, the part that received treatment was neck, shoulder, etc. (the victim's recording Nos. 17-19)" (the victim's recording Nos. 17-19). The victim was diagnosed as a light signboard disability before the instant case (Evidence Nos. 49), and the victim was exempted from the water by using a disc (Evidence No. 50 pages of the evidence record).

C. In addition, separate from the instant case, the victim filed a complaint against the Defendant that he was injured by similar rape, etc. on March 5, 2016, and submitted the medical certificate, and the medical certificate (Evidence No. 26 pages) also stated that the injury, such as salt, tension, etc. was inflicted on the Defendant.

D. In light of the fact that the victim did not focus on the degree of the injury inflicted on the victim, the victim had already been disabled on the same side, and that there was a fact that the same medical certificate was issued at the same time close to the instant case, there is reasonable doubt as to whether the Defendant’s act caused the injury, such as the instant facts charged.

3. Whether the crime of confinement is established;

A. Whether to recognize the act of confinement and the intentional act of confinement

The crime of confinement is a crime that makes it impossible or extremely difficult to leave a certain area with the freedom of human behavior protected by the law, and there is no limitation on the means and method of restricting the freedom of human behavior (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do655, May 15, 1984).

The victim consistently argued from the investigative agency to this court that "the defendant was dissatisfied with while getting on and off the vehicle that the defendant is driving, so that the victim demanded from the vehicle to be unloaded. The victim attempted to get off the vehicle every time a signal gets off, but the body of the defendant was unable to get off." The victim stated to the effect that the door of the vehicle was unable to get out of the vehicle, such as driving in open condition." On March 29, 2016, the victim was confirmed to be a number of times when the vehicle is stopped by the defendant from 22:26 to 29 March 2016, when the victim was getting off from the vehicle (Evidence No. 276, 277 of the evidence record), according to the video 2 (Evidence No. 276, 277 of the vehicle record), when the vehicle was stopped by signal, the body is seriously shakend, and the vehicle is changed to a signal signal.

According to the above victim's statement and black stay images, it is recognized that the defendant was unable to get off the body of the victim who intends to get off the vehicle. The above act of the defendant is a restraint on the freedom of human behavior, and it constitutes an act of confinement objectively and constitutes an act of confinement, and the intention of confinement cannot be denied.

B. Whether illegality is recognized

However, in light of various circumstances, such as the relationship between two persons as follows, the process, purpose, means, and the intent of the defendant, which are acknowledged as the result of the trial, the above confinement act is considered to be justified as an act that is reasonable and acceptable by social norms. Under the following circumstances, it is an excessive interpretation to evaluate the defendant's act of not immediately responding to the victim's demand for the discharge of the victim to be illegal.

1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant and the victim were in a relationship between marriage and the victim. On the day of the instant case, the Defendant’s boarding on the Defendant’s vehicle was for day-to-day transfers to the Defendant.

2) While the Defendant and the victim were fluping a vehicle for the Defendant’s daily gift on the same gate shopping mall, the victim was dissatisfied with the Defendant’s daily promise to make a PT (Personing). For that reason, the Defendant’s cancellation of the store schedule and the victim’s house in Gwangju-do was toward the victim’s house in order to bring the victim to his house. Since the victim continued to have a Handphone during the Do, the dispute re-convened, and the victim demanded the victim to set a blon while taking the blon for the Defendant.

3) In a situation where there occurs a common dispute between the parties as above, there is room to view that the Defendant was a need to confirm the genuine subordinate intent of the victim, and that if the victim who has declared a different decision is lowered from the next place, the victim could have terminated the relationship with the victim and prevented the victim from leaving his/her subordinate.

4) The duration during which the Defendant’s act of confinement continues is time not more than three minutes. This can be seen as the time required for the Defendant to confirm the intent of the victim and to conceal the interest of the victim.

5) In addition, it is difficult to view that the degree of the act committed by the Defendant is too serious because it is merely leading or accelerating the victim who intends to get off or get off the vehicle.

4. Conclusion

The facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime or a case where it does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under Article 325

The presiding judge, Kim Dong-dong,

Judges Powers Presiding Justice

Judges Kim Jae-won

1) The instant accusation case was rendered by a decision that had not been suspected of suspicion (Evidence No. 2) of 2016, 10,24. (Evidence No. 2)

2) The time order from March 29, 2016 to March 22:26, 2016 to March 29, 2016 is as follows.

(1) Evidence records 277 pages 277 Babbbox video CD20160329-22649-D.avi file

2. Evidence-record 276, 276, M.a.vi. all CD rec. 201603.22700 d.avi files

③ Evidence Records 276, 276, Babbbbox 2016-329 Does22734-D. Avi file with the whole CDs

4. Evidence-record 276, 276, all CD drivling 20160329 22274-D.a6 file

(5) Evidence records 276, 276, Babbbbox 201-22821-D.a6 file with the name of the whole CDbox 201-29.

6. Evidence records 276, 276, Babbbox Evor 20160329 Dob22837 file with the total of the CDboxs

(7) Evidence-record 276 pages 276, all CD drivling 20160329 -22851 -D.avi file

(8) Evidence records 276, 276, Babbbox Evor 20160329* 22929-D.a6 file with the whole CDs

(9) Evidence records 277 pages 277, CD20329 -2293 -2938 - avi file

(10) Evidence records 276, 276, all CD drivling 20160329-23038-D.a6 file

(11) Evidence-record 276, 276, all CD drivling Sc. 20160329.23139 d.a6 files

(12) Evidence-record 277 pages 277 Babbbox video 20160329 Do23238 DoD.a6 file