(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.02.08 2017고단4359

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.02.08 2017고단4359

폭행등

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 31, 2017, at around 10:20, the Defendant damaged the victim’s property, such as: (a) the victim D (61) (tax) who is the owner of the telecom in front of the telecom, which was located in front of the telecom, did not refund the user fee in front of the telecom; (b) the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 300,000,000,000 in front of the telecom; and (c) the Defendant damaged the victim’s property by putting the victim’s property in front of the telecom.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiry about criminal history, investigation report (the progress of the trial and confirmation of the same record), application of the text of the judgment;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. There are many criminal records of the same kind of violence against the defendant with the reasons for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act attracting the workhouse. In particular, in light of the fact that the defendant committed without being aware of the fact that the case was committed while being tried for the same kind of crime, and the overall details of the crime and its violent nature, the case is light.

Although it is not possible to see the degree of damage, it shall be determined in the same manner as the disposition in consideration of the fact that the victim has agreed smoothly with the victim.

Rejection of Public Prosecution

1. On October 31, 2017, the Defendant, at around 10:20, assaulted the victim on the following grounds: “C”’s corridor located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, and the victim D (61 tax) who is the host employer, did not refund the guest room usage fee” on the ground that the Defendant did not refund the room usage fee.

2. According to the agreement submitted to the court of this case, it can be recognized that the victim has withdrawn his wish to punish the defendant after the indictment of this case was instituted. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

참조조문

-형법 제69조 제2항

-형법 제70조 제1항

-형법 제366조

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2017.09.15 2017고단618

-인천지방법원 2017.01.13 2016고정3424

-제주지방법원 2019.09.06 2019고단1033

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.08 2018고단2678

-부산지방법원 2016.09.29 2016고정2108