폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won.
If the defendant does not pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.
Punishment of the crime
At around 23:00 on April 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) stated that the victim D (the age of 56) who was driven by the Defendant’s vehicle on behalf of the Defendant on the street in the south-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on the ground that he was aware of the road and was familiar with driving; (b) stated “ how he was acting on behalf of the Defendant” as a dangerous object in the said vehicle; and (c) threatening the victim as he was at the time going against the victim; and (d) assaulted the victim, such as sprinking the flaf of the victim’s flaf.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Legal statement of witness D;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a steel monm photograph and photograph;
1. Relevant Article 261 of the Criminal Act and Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;
1. The sentencing criteria shall not be applied as a fine is selected for the crime in the judgment.
2. The Defendant’s use of assault against the victim by a monm monmp, which is a dangerous object without being aware of during the repeated period, is not less than the nature of the crime and the crime.
However, since the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant did not exercise the direct force of the Defendant’s monmp, there are circumstances to consider the form thereof, such as recognizing the Defendant’s crime and allowing the victim to agree with the victim, and the victim is present at the court as a witness and seek the Defendant’s preference.
Criminal records of defendant's repeated crime are different from this case, and the defendant has been punished by violent fine and two times, but it has the record prior to 2004.
Considering these circumstances, the defendant is sentenced to a fine like the order.