logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2014.06.20 2013고정1390
폭행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the Chairperson of C, and the victim D(55 years of age) is an auditor of the same text.

Of the above sentences, the Defendant agreed to give KRW 45 million to the above E and withdraw the said lawsuit with respect to the four preliminary dispositions such as application for suspension of performance of duties filed by the former auditor E against the Defendant, etc.

On October 15:10, 2013, at the above sentence office located in the Daegu Seo-gu F, Daegu-gu, the Defendant: (a) when the victim raised an objection to the said agreement and requested the victim to present the original agreement; (b) when the victim saw bat, fat the bat and fat the bat of the victim, fat and fat the head and fat, etc., 3 times as drinking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D or G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness H’s legal statement;

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion under the main text of Article 186 (1) and Article 191 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is alleged as self-defense even if the defendant assaulted D, but according to D and G's legal statement, the defendant raised an objection against D's written agreement, and first, it is recognized that the defendant raised an objection to D's agreement, and first placed a drinking on D's flaps, and put it on a flap, and even according to the defendant's statement at the investigation agency and court, even if the defendant made a statement at the investigation agency and court, the defendant d's flap and fladdd's d's flap. Thus, the defendant's argument of self-defense on the premise that D's illegal infringement was without merit.

arrow