logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.10.12 2017고단1735
상해등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is currently in a divorce lawsuit with the victim C, and he is the victim D(10).

1. On June 7, 2016, the injured Defendant suffered injury, such as salt, tension, etc., of the 2 weeks of treatment for the injured party while the injured party was in a dispute with the injured party C, who was in the inside of the residence No. 210 Dong 604, Yangsan-si around 22:00, and 210 Dong 604.

2. Around 02:00 on January 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) while drunkly engaging in a dispute with the victim C at his/her dwelling space, as described in the above paragraph (1) around 02:00, the Defendant: (b) took the victim C by pushing the victim C; (c) 2-3 times his/her head; (d) at around that time, the victim D, who saw the victim D, sound “I am at the bit of bit of bit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of the face of the victim D

As a result, the Defendant committed physical abuse that may injure the victim D's body or may injure the physical health and development of the body, and the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim C, including the 1st century L1 in need of treatment for about 8 weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendant’s statement in court - The Defendant confessions a crime of violation of the Child Uniforms Act as indicated in the judgment, but with respect to each of the crimes of injury against the victim C, the Defendant’s defense is legitimate during the defense process.

The grounds for appeal are as follows.

- The Defendant’s assertion that the testimony of the witness D was legitimate defense based on the degree of his/her testimony, etc. at the time when the victim C and the witness D was directly examined as a witness on January 29, 2017, and based on other evidence duly adopted cannot be accepted.

On the other hand, in the case of bodily injury on January 29, 2017, the facts charged include “the act of taking 2-3 head as a scam,” but the relevant medical certificate (hereinafter referred to as “the instant medical certificate”) does not contain any injury to the head, thereby approaching this part of the medical certificate with a question. However, “the head of a scam is taken.”

arrow