logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.02.16 2016고정1433
폭행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 27, 2016, at around 11:40, the Defendant, using the shoulder, d (52 aged 52) of the victim D (the victim’s body) in the 1st floor B store in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si, the Defendant 201: (a) towed the victim’s body in several times; (b) boomed the victim’s body; and (c) bucked the victim’s body against the victim’s act; and (d) bucked the victim’s body by breakinging and plucking the flab; and (c) bucked the victim’s body by s

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act argues that his act constitutes a legitimate defense. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator's act constitutes an attack and the perpetrator's intent to attack one another rather than to defend the victim's unfair attack, and that the perpetrator's act was committed against one another. The perpetrator's act has the nature of both the defensive act and the act of attack at the same time (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004, etc.). In full view of each of the above evidence, the defendant's act was committed in the case of this case by using the victim D and nebath, etc., first of all, the defendant's act was committed in the crime of this case by using the bomb, etc., and in light of all the circumstances indicated in the records of this case such as the process leading up, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's act exceeded the passive limit of the victim's attack.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

arrow