logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.07.19 2018고정243
폭행
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person who manages the redevelopment C’s office, and D is the E’s spouse, a partner of the redevelopment project.

On November 8, 2017, the Defendant would allow the perusal of accounting books at the redevelopment C Partnership office located in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F and the third floor around November 15:00.

D's body was sealed on the ground that the above D's body was obstructed and interfered with the work in the office.

2. According to the statements of the judgment D and CCTV images, the defendant's two shoulder parts of the victim are recognized as a civil fact by his/her hand.

However, according to the above evidence, after entering the association office of the defendant's employee, the injured party and the defendant changed the victim to leave the association office.

The facts are as follows: (a) the victim, despite the request of the defendant, can be found to have raised the victim's speech, and that the victim's shoulder part of the victim's shoulder part is somewhat public (see, e.g.,CCTV image 15:03:57) by his hand so that the victim may no longer misleads the victim; (b) the victim's chest part of the defendant's chest part is strong by hand; and (c) the fact that the police was dispatched by the defendant's report thereafter.

In full view of the above circumstances, the above act by the defendant is deemed to lack illegality in light of the circumstances such as the process, purpose, means, and intentions of the defendant, and it seems that there is considerable reason to allow it in light of social norms.

Therefore, since the defendant's act does not constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, the defendant's act is judged not guilty in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the defendant's act is not present on the sentencing date and thus it is impossible to obtain the defendant's consent, the summary of this judgment is not to be announced in accordance with the proviso of

arrow