logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.05.07 2019고정1208
상해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The victim B is an employee of the "C" business establishment, and the defendant has been a customer at the same marina business establishment.

On February 8, 2019, at around 04:30 on 04:30, the victim was found in the "Seoul Northern-gu D, 5th floor", and the defendant was found to have been able to find the shotet lost in the business place prior to the finding of the defendant, and "a shot-si type shot-si shot-si shot-si shot-si shot-si."

After this, the victim immediately closed the iron door installed outside of the elevator where the defendant was enrolled in the elevator, and in this case, the defendant was suffering from the defect in the iron door in the process of seeking to return the elevator out of the elevator.

As a result, the Defendant got off the body of the victim from the elevator with his hand and then pushed off the body once, and caused about two weeks of treatment to the victim, and caused the victim to be sprinked with the salt and tensions, and the lower half of the body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect B;

1. Shot photographs of on-site guards;

1. The Defendant’s act of making a judgment on the Defendant’s assertion in each investigation report constitutes self-defense and thus, the illegality should be avoided. Even if the act of defense exceeds its degree, the Defendant’s act should be excluded from liability as it was caused by fear, bad faith, entertainment, or confusion under night or other extraordinary circumstances. However, in light of the Defendant’s circumstance, degree, surrounding circumstances, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act constituted a passive resistance to defend the present unfair attack from the victim. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion premised on this premise is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including motive and circumstance of the crime, degree of injury, etc.);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

arrow