beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On May 6, 2012, around 17:45, the Defendant: (a) committed an assault to take out F (n, 32 years of age) and its pictures from “E” carpets located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant carpets”); (b) the Defendant obstructed the Defendant from approaching the picture; and (c) the Defendant committed an assault to take off the f’s clothes on the part of F, which he left ahead of the Defendant, with the lower part of the Defendant’s f’s upper part of the f’s upper part of the f’s upper part of the f’s upper part of the f’s upper part, thereby incurring injury to F for about three weeks of medical treatment.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) regardless of the circumstances, the F is going beyond the F at the above time and place. 2. Summary of the Defendant’s assertion
(a) there is no sleep of F’s clothes, and, if any, has been in favor of F;
Even if this is applicable, it shall be back to F.m.
The crime of injury by assault is not established since it is not intentionally f's clothes, because it goes beyond f's free will, and it is hard to f's clothes.
B. Even if the act of the defendant constitutes the element of the crime of bodily injury, the picture that the defendant tried to take out at the time is the combination property of G with the defendant. The act of F taking out the picture without the defendant's consent is a criminal act, and the act of the defendant preventing such criminal act is self-defense.
3. Review of the records of this case reveals the following facts. A.
1) On March 201, the Defendant established the instant carpet, a galgr type carpet, which entered into the Defendant’s husband-friendly G with his husband H and exhibits art works, around March 201. The Defendant’s husband invested in cash, and G took charge of overall duties related to business start-up and led to the operation of the instant carpet. 2) After which there was a conflict between the Defendant’s husband and G with respect to the instant carpet, the Defendant participated in the instant carpet from March 2012 to March 201.