Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Violence

(Public Trial)

2018 7519

On April 11, 2018, around 05:30 on April 11, 2018, the Defendant entered the 'DPC room' accounting unit in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the 'DPC room' as a special assault, and was investigated by the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office in Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant was investigated by the Seoul Central Prosecutors' Police Station and Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, and the

At around 22:00 on May 14, 2018, the Defendant discovered that the victim is waiting for the signal in front of the crosswalk in order to work in the PC, and that the victim was able to obtain a apology, or that he was investigated by the police in the case of assault", and that "the victim was being investigated by the police due to the assault", and that the victim was able to walk the victim's bridge by walking the victim's her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

At around 05:40 on April 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) requested the victim E, an employee of the Defendant, to exchange a new tin tin son with the new tin tin tin tin , but (b) made a obscing view that the victim would have purchased at any time, and (c) made it possible to ask him/her at any time, and (d) completed the face and shoulder of the victim, which is a dangerous object of his/her possession, (1m in length). Accordingly, the Defendant abused the victim by using a mountain, which is a dangerous object.

Summary of Evidence

“2018 Gohap519

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each written statement of E and G;

1. Investigation report (verification of the 112 Report Handling List), investigation report ( telephone conversations with the shoter H);

1. CCTVOF CD 2018 high-scale 696

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of E and I;

1. A criminal investigation report (related to attaching photographs of victims);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 5-9(2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of assault for the purpose of return), Articles 261 and 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special assault and the choice of imprisonment)

The punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall be aggravated within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of each crime as stated in the judgment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes with heavier punishment

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following sentencing grounds), as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel (hereinafter “2018 Gohap519”)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant committed an assault by means of cutting the mother and child of the victim, etc., but did not attract the victim’s head debt.

B. After the case of special assault, the Defendant made efforts to not assault the victim, and the victim was forced to walk the path at the time of the instant case, and the victim was tried to be subject to apology with the victim, but the victim committed any contingent assault with the mind that he was able to shot up with the desire to shot, and there was no objective of retaliation in relation to the investigation of criminal cases.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in accordance with the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s mother and child was not only the victim’s mother but also the head debt. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

1) The victim stated at the investigative agency that "the defendant was trying to keep his clothes after putting his clothes in front of her clothes." He observed the crime of this case and reported 112 that "H had a great voice for the victim's head," and the statement is consistent with the facts charged, and therefore the contents of the statement are believed to be consistent with each other.

2) The CCTV images, in which the crime scene was recorded, are taken in such a way that the Defendant, who was fluent with the mother and her clothes, was unable to take the head from the time when the victim got out of the victim. While it is not enough to readily conclude that the Defendant, on the screen, led the victim’s head, he/she could not have taken off the victim’s head, it can be confirmed that the Defendant was fluent and that the Defendant was fluent in the process of leading the victim to escape from the Defendant. In light of this, the Defendant seems to have fluenced the body part of the victim, rather than clothes, at the time of the Defendant’s escape.

B. In full view of the contents of disadvantage suffered by the Defendant according to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, response of the Defendant, background and mode of the Defendant and the victim at the time of the commission of the crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior, it can be sufficiently recognized that there was the purpose of retaliation against the Defendant at the time of the commission of the crime in this part. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

1) 2018. 4. 11. 05:40경 피고인이 피해자를 폭행하자, 피해자와 함께 아르바이트를 하던 PC방 종업원의 112 신고로 경찰관이 출동하였다. 피해자는 경찰관에게 피고인의 폭행 사실을 이야기하였으며 피고인의 처벌을 원한다는 취지의 진술서를 작성하였다. 이에 피고인은 같은 날 06:00경 현행범으로 체포된 후 서울관악경찰서에서 조사를 받고 같은 날 09:00경 석방되었다. 피고인은 경찰 조사 당시 '과자를 교환하려 했는데 피해자가 자신을 도둑으로 의심하고 있는 것 같아 기분이 나빴다. 피해자에게 믿지 못하겠으면 CCTV를 확인해보라고 말했는데도 교환을 해주지 않았고, 화가 나 피해자와 사이에 욕설을 주고받으며 삿대질을 하게 되었다. 그 과정에서 피해자가 우산에 부딪혀 상처가 생겼는데 자신이 일부러 인체에 접촉되도록 한 건 아니다.'라고 진술하여 사건 발생의 주된 원인이 피해자 측에 있다는 취지로 억울함을 호소하였다.

2) After that, the Defendant did not face with the victim, such as using the PC for the time when the victim works, etc., the Defendant re-confidented the victim before the crosswalk on the day of the instant case. The Defendant: (a) discovered the victim and her mother and her mother were fluored by a fluoring so that they walked with the victim’s bridge; and (b) such assault continued until the fluor was obstructed by the Defendant; (c) according to the CCTV video recorded at the scene of the crime, the Defendant started the assault immediately following the victim, when finding the victim, and the victim was waiting for the signal prior to the occurrence of the assault by the Defendant, and did not act, such as dividing the Defendant’s talk with the direction of the victim, or dividing the talk with the Defendant.

3) At the time, the victim stated at the investigative agency that "I will pay back to the extent that I would have been faced with, and die. I will not work at the bar." On the other hand, H who observed the crime stated that "I would like to repeat the phrase "I would like to see why I would you go to the victim?" In this court, the Defendant also stated that "I would like to see why I would go to the victim as I would like to go to the victim," and that "I would like to go to the victim." At the time of the instant case, the Defendant also stated that "I would go to the victim as I would go to the Doar. I would like to see why I would go to go to the Doar." In light of the above Defendant's words and actions, the Defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that I was investigated by the police due to a special assault charge against the victim by the time of the instant case.

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months from June 17;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crime: A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

【Determination of Punishments 【Assaults 7(Assaults Purpose of Retaliatory)】

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation Area and Punishment] Basic Area, 10-2 years of imprisonment

(b) Concurrent crimes: Special assault;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 6 (Special Violence for Habitual Offense)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Punishment] Basic Field, 6 months to 10 months, and 10 months. The scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

From October to November of 10 (the total of 11 months of imprisonment with prison labor for two years, which is the upper limit of the scope of punishment for basic crimes)

3. Each of the crimes of this case by a sentence of sentence is an act of assaulting a victim, who is a PC employee, using dangerous things, and furthermore, being investigated by an investigation agency, and thus, the nature of the crime is very bad. In particular, an act of assault aimed at retaliation brings about serious threat to the appropriate exercise of the State penal authority, and thus, requires strict punishment in criminal policy. The victim is seeking to appeal serious physical and mental pain after the instant case, and take the defendant against severe punishment. In addition, the Defendant has a series of classes and a criminal record. Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant recognized a considerable portion of each of the crimes in this case and is against the Defendant. The crime of special assault in this case appears to have been somewhat contingent in the course of a dispute with the victim, and the crime of retaliation in this case also does not seem to have committed the Defendant in advance. Such circumstances are considered favorable to the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions in the trial process of this case, including the following factors.

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

Regular Category of Judges

For judges the last place: