beta
Text
The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On July 4, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment with prison labor for robbery, injury, etc. in this court, and such judgment became final and conclusive on February 13, 2020.
The defendant and the victim B ( South, 57 years old) are confined in Jeju prison.
At around 17:30 on October 2, 2019, the Defendant, in Jeju Correctional Institution C, had the victim's face, and had the victim's face, and had the victim s face, and had the victim s face sprinked around the left 14 days for 14 days.
Summary of Evidence
1. Each written statement of the police officer's interrogation protocol D, E, and F concerning the defendant's legal statement B, G, and H prepared;
1. Investigation reports (work reports, self-statements, photographer files), photographs of the victim (B), investigation reports (B), diagnosis reports, examination reports (in the order of fighting between B and A, photo files, photographs and photographs of the order of fighting between B and A, investigation reports (in the case of previous records in which the order of fighting between B and A is filed: Criminal records inquiry, report on the results of confirmation of the previous records, Defendant's legal statement, and application of statutes significantly to this court;
1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;
1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;
1. The proviso of Article 39(1) of the Exempted Criminal Act (the defendant has been convicted of the same offense as the previous offense as indicated in the judgment due to robbery, injury, etc.) (It is reasonable to exempt the Defendant from punishment for this case in view of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime by means of plastic water (weight 3.7kg), which is contained in the victim, at the same time taking account of the equity between the instant case and the instant case where the Defendant was tried concurrently, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime by means of a counter-influence (weight