logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2012.09.27 2012고정485
폭행
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 8, 2012, at around 15:00, the Defendant, at the boiler room operated by the victim D (the age of 65) of the second floor of the Asan City Building, used the card play with the victim, E, and the victim “bababab,” and used the Defendant’s babbabbba with double hand, and used the victim’s bababbba with the victim’s babba, and used the victim’s bababba, “the victim babbab,” and used the victim’s babath with the bababba,” and used the victim’s bababa, “the victim bababbab,” with his babab

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. A criminal investigation report (general);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to recording notes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was unilaterally assaulted by the victim, and that the defendant did not have any assaulted by the victim.

In addition, the defendant asserts that even if he assaulted the victim, it constitutes a passive resistance and thus, illegality is excluded.

According to the above evidence, it is reasonable to view that the defendant committed assault against the victim in light of the following: (a) the defendant expressed her desire with the victim at the time; (b) the head of breath; and (c) the defendant acted with the victim.

In addition, in light of the above circumstances, since the defendant's act has the nature of attack beyond the limit of defense act, it cannot be viewed as self-defense.

arrow