(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.07.27 2018노668 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.07.27 2018노668

상해

Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant merely plicked the victim who dump with his head, but did not intentionally plick up the victim’s strict fingers.

2) The injury suffered by the victim does not constitute injury under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act because it is minor and no particular treatment is required.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two months of imprisonment (two years of suspended execution) and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. On May 12, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 13:20 on May 12, 2017, at the “F cafeteria operated by the Victim B (V, 53 years old) in Nam-gu, Incheon; (b) tried to pay the value of food to the victim on the ground that food was fake; and (c) sought to pay the value of food to the victim before the above cafeteria; and (d) carried the victim and the Defendant with the Defendant, who was able to wear the Defendant. While the victim avoided, the Defendant she got to the third floor of the G building in Nam-gu, Incheon; (b) but the victim was fluened by paying the value of food to the victim; and (c) caused the victim’s fluoral finger, fluor, etc. to inflict an injury on the victim, such as the need for approximately 2 weeks medical treatment by plicking the victim’s fluoral finger, etc.

B. Even if the relevant legal doctrine appears to be external speculation, if either party unilaterally commits an unlawful attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself and escape therefrom, it is dismissed that the act is unlawful as an act of considerable nature permissible in light of social norms in light of all circumstances, such as the circumstance and purpose leading up to the act, means, and the intent of the actor, unless the act exceeds the limit of passive defense, not an active counter-incentive attack (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6843, Jun. 26, 2008).

We examine this case in light of the above legal principles.

The following are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below:

참조조문

-형법 제257조 제1항

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.02.21 2017고단8527

-대법원 1984. 9. 11. 선고 84도1440 판결

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.04.10 2013고정1302

-수원지방법원 2015.08.19 2015노155

-창원지방법원 2019.01.23 2018노2364