logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.20 2016고정956
폭행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 10:00 on January 29, 2016, the Defendant committed assault against the victim, such as the victim E (hereinafter referred to as the “victim E”) who works as a marina security personnel within the Dart latter part of the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the ground that he demanded a receipt for the goods possessed by the Defendant, and the victim’s chest part was 2 times at a time, and the victim’s mouth was walking back several times due to the outbreak.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Screenings of CCTV screen pictures and CCTV screen pictures and images of the victim's body by cutting down the CCTV images and CCTV screen pictures;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (related to the calculation of suspect goods);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the basic remuneration of 300,000 won for witness E who is a public defender) and Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the defendant's act constitutes self-defense to defend the victim's assault or a justifiable act that does not go against social rules. However, considering the circumstances where the defendant's act can be acknowledged by each of the above evidence; in particular, the defendant attempted to leave the search team without passing through the search team, and the defendant's act did not constitute a justifiable act that does not go against self-defense or social rules. Thus, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion cannot be accepted.

arrow