logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.05.11 2017노4453
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The defendant's appeal reasons merely tried to take care of the victim's failure to park by the victim's customer. However, the victim's loss and flaps in order to unfortunate the defendant's body and to unfortunate the defendant's body by pushing the defendant's chest through the flabing of the defendant's chest. The victim continued to live in the defendant's flab and was not leading to the victim, and the victim was not able to assault the victim. Since the victim's dog was not leading to the victim, the victim's dog was not able to assault the victim. Even after that, the victim's dog was opened, the victim's flab and flab in order to unfore the victim's flab in the situation where the victim's dog was removed.

Rather, the injured party did not punish the victim even though he was removed from the defendant's bridge by breathing the defendant's breath, so the defendant was treated in an emergency room nine times or more.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts, although the defendant's act constitutes a passive resistance act and constitutes a

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular CCTV images, etc., the defendant argued that the defendant, an employee of the victim, parked in the victim restaurant to the victim E while parked in the victim restaurant, and that E went into the restaurant of the victim by having the victim go to the victim, who is the victim of the restaurant, and the victim came to the restaurant of the victim. The defendant and the victim can prove that E et al. had turned into the victim before the victim's opening, and it can be recognized that they had turned into the e et al. for more than one minute even before the victim's opening. Thus, the defendant assaulted with the victim by saving the victim's e et al., and the defendant's act cannot be deemed a legitimate act or a legitimate defense. Thus, the defendant's claim is asserted.

arrow