logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2014.08.22 2014고단1042
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

C has often argued that the customers of the ordinary defendant are dissatisfied with the use of the customer in front of his own will.

C On December 2, 2013, around 05:15, at the E convenience store building D located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, the Defendant was aware of the completion of the work at his own house and was under cleaning, and the Defendant was under cleaning.

Accordingly, C who intends to enter the convenience store in order to request the defendant to be able to be able to be able to be able to get able to be able to get able to be able to get able to be able to get able to be able to be able to get able to be able to get

C son's body fighting, the defendant left the convenience store, C laid a pipe of 75 cm length, which is a dangerous object located within the convenience store, and faced the defendant's arms and body part with a hack pipe away from the floor.

For the foregoing reason, the Defendant avoided drinking water from the victim C (70 years of age) and took the arms of the victim as his hand, and caused the victim’s sponsing back to the left side of the victim, and sponsed the sponse of a sphere, which requires treatment between approximately two weeks, to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of suspect C by the prosecution;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the crime of this case is unlawful as self-defense. However, since it is difficult to see that the act satisfies the requirements of reasonableness in the method or means, it cannot be deemed as self-defense. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

arrow