beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.11.19 2015고정789

상해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 1, 2015, the Defendant entered the K Kinging practice room located in Jincheon-gun B, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do along with D.

At that time, the victim E, who had been a guest, was able to enter the body while drawing in D, and the defendant was sleeped through four times by "Ne's fright to get female fright," and flabing the bat of the victim by hand.

As a result, the Defendant had been on the thrings of the following and the thrings in need of treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. Each police statement made to F and D;

1. A written diagnosis of injury (E);

1. The victim's photograph [the victim] of the suspect's photograph [the victim] stated that "the defendant was fatd with her fat, while her fatd with her hatd with her hatd with her hatd with her hats." The above statement is consistent with F and D's statement that "the defendant and the victim left her clothes and fats with each other, and her hatd with her hatd with her hatd's statement," and that the above statement is consistent with F and D's statement that "the victim suffered from the injury following the diagnosis of the victim, and the part and degree of the injury (e.g., satd with her hat, satd

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury and the selection of fines);

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

1. Although there are extenuating circumstances in light of the grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant suffered serious injury in the course of sentencing, and some developments leading up to breathing can be taken into account, the sentence is determined as ordered by taking account of the following: (a) the witness who was re-listed at his/her own request was found to have been “the Defendant duplicated with bat,” and the portion that the Defendant stated that he/she was “the Defendant dupliced with bat upon his/her request”