logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.11.19 2020노723
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged.

1) In light of CCTV images installed in a post office, the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the right side of the victim by plucking, plucking, and plucking, plucking, etc. of the victim, the Defendant fighting the body outside of the post office is fighting the victim’s body, and immediately after that plucking, the Defendant fighting the body of the victim outside of the post office.

However, a thorough examination of the above images reveals that even though the defendant did not exercise a tangible power such as not exercising a victim, the victim can be confirmed to have a sudden delay.

The defendant does not inflict any bodily injury upon the victim.

3) Although the fact that the Defendant had a leather for the victim was displayed, the victim did not have any fact that the Defendant suffered from the bad seat as he was in line with the arising leather belt. The victim extended the Defendant as if the Defendant was in accord with the shoulder. (B) Considering the following circumstances in light of the legal principles, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on self-defense and the injury of the Defendant. (1) The victim’s act as the police station and bathering the Defendant’s leather against the Defendant constitutes an assault against the Defendant.

The defendant's act constitutes self-defense and thus illegality is excluded, since the defendant's act constitutes self-defense in order to defend the current unfair infringement.

2 The victim stated in the court below that he did not receive hospital treatment in the court of original instance, and that he received medicine entirely.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the victim consumes any drug, and the wife suffered by the victim is likely to have been treated naturally, considering that the victim did not receive hospital treatment.

arrow