2020 Injury by negligence 146

The highest defendant, 38 years old, South, and North

Residential Ulsan

Kim Jong-tae (Court of Second Instance), Kim U.S. (Court of Second Instance)

Attorney Jeon-soo (Korean)

September 10, 2020

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000. If the defendant fails to pay the fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of one hundred thousand won converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal History Office

The Defendant is obligated to keep up and solid a dog to live in a general house at the entrance of Ulsan-gu 00, and raise a large of four masts in the front and rear end, and to keep up the sea paths adjacent to his dwellings in order not to cause damage to the residents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 18:00 on May 15, 2019, did not take a line kid in the above residence, asked the victim flue, whose 1stma was on the back of his residence, where 1stma was on the victim 1stma, who was on the back of her residence, to wear the victim flue, who was on the back of 40 years of age, and carried the victim’s left hand hand hand hand and hand, thereby bringing about approximately 10 days of treatment.

Accordingly, the defendant caused the victim's injury by negligence.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the defendant and defense counsel's assertion and judgment thereon

1. The assertion;

The defendant refers to the autopsy of 4 Mam only, and since the opening of attacking the victim at the time of the instant case is not the opening of the defendant, but the opening of the Dong-dong, there is no negligence on the defendant.

2. Determination

In light of the facts stated in the facts charged of this case, "the defendant kid" was asked to the victim, so it is a problem of whether the victim was the victim, and whether the victim was the victim. The following circumstances, which can be known by the evidence adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., the victim was unfasible, but the investigative agency did not have to attack the victim. However, after the occurrence of this case, the victim was found to have made an attack on the victim's own, the victim was found to have been the victim's kid, and the victim was the victim's kid, and the victim was the victim's kid, and the victim was the victim's mod's mod's mod', which was the victim's mod', and the victim was the victim's mod's mod', which was the victim's mod's mod', and the victim's mod's mod's mod's mod's mod'.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

Judges fixed-term