logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.08.27 2013고정1040
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 03:10 on December 1, 2012, at the main point of “E” located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, the Defendant, as well as C, was dissatisfied with the victim F (the age of 49) who was waiting for the said victim to move to the said victim while having set the main point, and the Defendant dnife and shakes the fran of the said victim F (the age of 49) and the victim G (the age of 47) who was working in F (the age of 49) with his hand, and C exceeded the victim F’s head debt with her hand, and sciffed it.

Accordingly, the defendant and C assaulted the victims jointly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police suspect examination protocol against F and G;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Selection of Punishment of Violences, etc., and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted to the effect that the act of political party or self-defense constitutes legitimate act and self-defense inasmuch as the act of this case was committed by F when the defendant and his defense counsel suffered bodily injury to C.

According to each of the above evidence, F can be acknowledged the fact that the Defendant was duplicated with C, and the Defendant was duplicated with f, and thus cannot be viewed as a passive resistance or self-defense for C. Thus, the above argument by the Defendant et al. is rejected.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow