폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
One kitchen (No. 1) which has been seized shall be confiscated from the accused.
Punishment of the crime
On October 01, 2013, at around 02:00, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol at the Defendant’s residence of 101, Dong 406, Daegu-gu C building 101, Dong 406, and without any particular reason, took a bath to the victim’s wife D (the age of 51), and took a dangerous object (18cm length, 4cm in width), which was in the kitchen, and took a knife a dangerous object (18cm in the knife, 18cm in width, 4cm in width) and brought an injury to the above D, such as a chest, which requires treatment for about three weeks, and the son E (22 years old), who is the victim, took a knife and reported the same to the police, and opened two parts of the above E- weeks, which were dangerous things in the kitchen, to the right side of the kitchen.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;
1. Statement of each police statement of D and E;
1. Records of seizure, the list of seizure, kniffic pictures, reports on emergency measures, photographs of victim D upper parts, and photographs of victim E upper parts;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Attachment to a victim's report on injury);
1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the fact that he/she repents wrongs and deposits part of the amount for victims);
1. The defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Criminal Code is alleged to the effect that he was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, according to the above evidence, the defendant is recognized as having drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but it does not seem that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above argument is rejected.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.