logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.08.13 2013고정6841
상해
Text

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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 08:00 on November 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) saw C’s neck on the front of the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, 561-30’s club, on the ground that C was frighting to the Defendant’s active female; (b) saw C’s snow part of the victim D(33 years of age) that was fright, and caused the victim’s injury on the days of treatment that the victim’s snow was frighted by walking to the buckbuck, and caused the victim’s frighting snow.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Photographs of the complainant, the accused, etc.;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. Determination as to the defense of the defendant and his/her defense counsel or the assertion of legitimate act under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, at the time of the instant case, when the defendant was forced to attack from the victim and his behaviors, the defendant committed an assault against the victim as stated in the facts charged while setting up against the victim to defend it, and that this constitutes legitimate act that does not violate social rules, as legitimate self-defense or passive resistance against the victim's unfair harmful act.

2. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was satisfy with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unjust attack, and that the act was committed against one another’s attack, and as such, it cannot be viewed as self-defense, since the act was at the same time a defensive act

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004). The following circumstances, i.e., motive and circumstance leading the Defendant and the victim to a fighting, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in the judgment, and the health unit as to the instant case, are as follows.

arrow