beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2014.07.25 2014고정73

폭행

Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person who was in a de facto marital relationship with the victim B (or 15 years of age).

1. Around February 3, 2013, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s her hand floor from the Defendant’s house located in Seosan-si Cumbud 207 around February 3, 2013 at the time of several times.

2. Around February 2013, the Defendant assaulted the victim with his/her floor at a place specified in paragraph (1) at around February 2013, in view of the victim’s scam and walking through a variety of times.

3. Around September 2013, the Defendant committed a crime, around September 2013, and around September 2013, the Defendant used the victim’s hair 404, leading the victim’s head, leading the victim’s head, and assaulting the victim at several times.

4. Around October 23, 2013, the Defendant committed the crime and assaulted the victim’s head by drinking at the place specified in paragraph (1) at around 19:00 on October 23, 2013, on a single occasion and on several occasions, at the same time.

5. On October 29, 2013, the Defendant committed a crime on October 29, 2013: (a) around 13:00 on October 29, 2013, the Defendant assaulted the victim with his/her hand floor from a F car parked in front of the building in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do on several occasions.

6. On October 29, 2013, the Defendant committed a crime around 15:00 on October 29, 2013, and assaulted the victim’s head by using the hand floor from a F car parked on the road located on the west-si G located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do at around 15:00 on October 29, 2013.

2. We examine the judgment. The facts charged of this case are the crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, it can be acknowledged that B, the victim of this case, voluntarily submitted a written agreement on December 2, 2013, which was subsequent to the request of the summary order of this case, and withdrawn the wish to punish the defendant. Thus, the prosecution against the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.