logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.11.28 2014고정2053
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(운전자폭행등)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Around June 1, 2014, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Drivers, Violence, etc.) committed assault against a driver of a vehicle under driving on one occasion at the right side of the victim’s face due to drinking, on the ground that the victim B driven adjacent to the upper wing-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the ground that the victim got a way from C cab driving to the destination.

2. The Defendant, on the ground that the victim, who was assaulted at the date and time and place under the preceding paragraph, stopped the taxi on the roadside and reported it to the police, dumpeded the victim’s breath to the bend and walked the victim’s side gate up to the floor on two occasions, and breadd the victim at two prices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Investigation report (Investigation of the counter party of the shootings);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged victim's assault;

1. Article 5-10 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as to the crime, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant was in an insane or a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, the method and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after committing the instant crime, etc., the Defendant did not have the ability or ability to make a decision to discern things at

Since it seems that the defendant did not seem to have reached a state or weak, the above argument by the defendant is rejected.

arrow