beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.11.29 2013고단4486

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On June 20, 2013, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol at the “Cju” store located in Seocheon City B around 00:50 on June 20, 2013, on the ground that the victim D(the age of 41) said that it would not interfere with other customers, the Defendant, “I am hump theme,” and “I am hump, I am hump the victim on the surface of a two-way disease, which is a dangerous object on the table table. I am hump and dump of the victim.

In this respect, the defendant carried a dangerous object, and assaulted the victim D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning photographic images;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., the fact that the defendant has been aware of the crime from the beginning of the investigation to the end of the investigation, and the defendant has committed a contingent crime under the influence of alcohol; the defendant has agreed with the victim that the victim has not been punished by a fine; the defendant has no record of exceeding a fine, and there has been no record of punishment for the last eight years);

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the favorable circumstances in the foregoing), the Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental or physical disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. Thus, according to the evidence as seen earlier, even though the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the fact.

The above assertion cannot be accepted as it seems to be in a state or weak condition.