logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.09.24 2014고정1526
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 1, 2014, at around 23:40 on January 1, 2014, Defendants were the members of the Egyptian association or an emergency countermeasure committee, and were the members of the Egyptian association in the second floor of the Egyptian Association in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the members of the Egyptian association were the members of the Egyptian association and the members of the Egyptian association, Defendant B was the members of the victim G (the age of 58) with the two descendants, and Defendant A was sealed the victim’s left part, who was being towed as above, into the stairs below the stairs.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Some police interrogation protocol regarding Defendant B

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Application of statutes governing field video CDs;

1. The Defendants: Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The defense counsel of the Defendants in the determination of the defense counsel regarding the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the Defendants did not have the intent of assault or the Defendants’ act constitutes self-defense. However, in light of various circumstances such as the background, method, method, specific circumstances at the time of the instant crime acknowledged by each of the above evidence, the Defendants’ intent of assault is recognized, and the Defendants’ act cannot be deemed as self-defense. Thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

arrow