logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2012.10.23 2012고정1373
폭행등
Text

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of 400,000 won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 8, 2012, at around 10:00, the Defendant was unable to take passengers in a village bus with a transportation card issued by CFC on March 8, 2012 due to the breakdown of the transportation card, and the Defendant was willing to resist this point to the said CF and to receive a reimbursement for damage.

At around 16:00 on April 13, 2012, the Defendant interfered with the victims’ work by force on the ground that the employees of the office know that the Defendant received KRW 2.10,000 as compensation for the breakdown of transportation cards from the president of the said association were aware of the fact that he/she received 2.10,00 won from the said president of the said association in compensation for the failure of transportation cards.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each statement of E and F;

1. Details of occurrence, confirmation, and application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on transportation cards;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. On March 14, 2012, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s face on one occasion by drinking, while taking account of the following reasons: (a) at the C&A office of an incorporated association where the victim E (the age of 54) working in Songpa-gu Seoul (the age of 54) works for the victim E (the age of 54) on the ground that his/her transportation card was broken out.

2. This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to E's written application for non-prosecution of punishment, the victim, who is the victim, has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on October 9, 2012, after the institution of this part of the indictment. Thus, this part of the facts charged is in accordance with Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow