logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.01.14 2015고단4211
방실침입등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant listened to the Defendant’s speech that his earlycar was assaulted by his nameless neighbors residing in Seo-gu, Gwangju, about 501, and tried to find it. On September 3, 2015, the Defendant entered this door through a 501 entrance opened by the victim E, who was occupied by the victim, around 02:05.

Accordingly, the defendant invadeds on the room possessed by the injured person.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. E statements;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 319 of the option of punishment for the crime (Selection of a fine in consideration of the fact that only the victim has agreed to do so);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The part dismissing a public prosecution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment

1. On September 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 02:05 on September 3, 2015, the Defendant committed assault against the victim E, who was enjoying from the area in Gwangju Seo-gu, about 501, by taking the victim’s return in his/her hand; (b) assaulted the victim by walking the victim’s return on his/her hand; and (c) walking the victim’s ship once.

2. The judgment is a crime 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, the victim E can recognize the fact that the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish the defendant on December 18, 2015, which is after the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(5) of the Criminal Act.

arrow