logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.08 2014고정2133
폭행등
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

On 02:15 on 24. 208. 02:02:15, the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender of assaulting E in front of the D District located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and arrived at the D District, and led to the arrival of the D District, resulting in the Defendant’s damage to the police patrol vehicle, which is a public object, by walking the back glass of the F 15th of the city patrol vehicle, which is operated in the D District located in the Seoul Mine Police Station, at the market location of the Seoul Mine Police Station.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second trial date);

1. G statements;

1. Application of the written estimate for motor vehicle inspection and maintenance;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 (1) 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. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) around 01:55 on August 24, 2014, sent 10,000 parking fees on the street in front of the H building in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City; (b) assaulted the victim’s security guards E (Nam, 62 years old), who are getting off from the remainder of the defective vehicle, to drink 5 times as a drinking, and walked 2 times as the he was going off.

2. We examine the judgment. This part of the facts charged 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According to the records of the trial of this case, the victim E can be acknowledged as the fact that the victim E has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 (6) of the

arrow