logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.02 2016고단3899
상해
Text

Defendant

A A Fines 2,00,000 won, Defendant B’s fine 3,000,000 won, and Defendant C’s fine 1,000,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 10, 2016, Defendant A: (a) around 20:05, on the ground that the victim B parked in the Defendant’s parking lot located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, before the Defendant’s house, at the Defendant’s house, she suffered bodily injury, such as an influence of the victim for about four weeks of treatment, by taking the victim into consideration the victim’s desire to take care of his/her face, and taking the victim’s face into consideration.

2. Defendant B and Defendant B suffered assault from the victim A at the time, time, and place described in paragraph 1, and as seen above, the victim’s face was sent back to the victim’s head, and the victim’s chest was taken back to drinking. Defendant C, who was on the job, committed an injury, such as cutting the body of the pelto, which requires approximately five weeks of treatment to the victim when the victim’s chest was cut back to drinking.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

[No. 1]

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness B and C;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspect B or C by the police;

1. CCTV photographs and CCTV screen pictures (No. 12 in the list of evidence);

1. A written diagnosis of injury to B (a point in No. 2 of the judgment in its holding);

1. Defendant C’s legal statement

1. The defendant B's partial statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police officer;

1. CCTV photographs and video images (No. 12 in the list of evidence);

1. The defendant A and his defense counsel asserted that the act of this case by the defendant A constituted legitimate defense.

However, according to the above macroscopic evidence, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A’s act of this case was carried out with one another’s intent of attack rather than with a view to defending the unjust attack B and C. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense.

Therefore, the defendant A and his defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257(1) of the choice of punishment (Article 1-2) of the Criminal Act

arrow