logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 해남지원 2020.05.07 2019고정99
상해등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 11, 2019, Defendant A, at around 16:20 on February 11, 2019, told the victim B(63 years of age) and parked as a parking problem in front of the E-cafeteria located in Jeonnam-gun D, Jeonnam-gun, the Defendant A got the victim's breast part of his chest due to her head and got about two weeks of treatment.

"2019, 131"

1. Around 15:00 on January 9, 2019, Defendant B filed a claim against the victim A as a matter of land boundary in front of the Republic of Korea, Nam, H, and I on the street in front of the Republic of Korea, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by saying, “the victim’s fluence, such as fraud change, dynassis, chissis, and chisium,” and publicly insulting the victim.

2. Around 15:00 on January 9, 2019, Defendant C filed a claim against the victim A as a matter of land boundary in front of the Republic of Korea, Nam, H, and I in front of the Republic of Korea, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by stating that “the victim’s evaculation, evade, typism, and pacta” was a large amount of evaculation to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

"2019 Highly 99"

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A suspect interrogation protocol concerning B by the prosecution;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. A written statement (including photographs attached thereto);

1. The Defendant A was unilaterally assaulted by B at the time and place as indicated in the judgment, and at the same time and place as indicated in the judgment, and did not incur any injury upon B’s chest as its head, and denied the facts charged.

However, as consistently stated in its reasoning from the police investigation stage to the court, B stated that the defendant was the head of his chest, and there is no special contradiction in the content itself.

In this case where the Defendant and B were unilaterally assaulted by the other party and they did not harm the other party, the wife in B had the law to make a statement consistent with the argument of B even in order to make the Part B.

arrow