The case holding that res judicata effect of a summary order on a criminal charge of an assault that was committed during the period of confinement extends to the injury resulting from serious confinement and coercion during the period of confinement.

With respect to the facts charged that husband detained her wife in his/her residence for a certain period of time, and forced her husband to write a self-written statement on the common facts, the case acquitted the above summary order on the ground that res judicata effect of the above summary order extends to the injury and coercion during the period of confinement on the ground that the facts charged by assault during the above confinement period and the facts charged by assault for which the summary order became final and conclusive are identical to the date and time of the crime, place of the crime, motive, and motive of the crime, and the other party in consideration of the same facts as the other party in the crime.

Articles 260(1), 277(1), 281(1), and 324 of the Criminal Act; Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1368) Supreme Court Decision 98Do749 delivered on August 21, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2367)

Defendant

New Name;

Attorney Shin Young-chul

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Two days of detention before this judgment is sentenced shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the facts charged in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (at night and joint violence), the forgery of private documents concerning each gift contract and the uttering of a falsified investigation document, and the fact that each of the original of the authentic deeds and the original of the authentic deeds are not guilty.

Of the facts charged of this case, the injury caused by confinement among the facts charged of this case shall be acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant,

1. (a) On May 7, 2002, Samsung 1 Dong Office, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, issued with the victim's certificate of the personal seal impression, when the victim's custody of the victim's goods, such as the victim's ladice ladice lador, etc., the victim's request form for the certificate of the personal seal impression may be forged by entering the victim's name, resident registration number, address, etc. in the column of the request form for the certificate of the personal seal impression and affixing the victim's seal impression in a letter of delegation, which is a private document concerning the rights and obligations under the victim's name, by affixing the victim's seal impression affixed to the victim's request form;

B. On May 28, 2002, at the same place as above (A) in the same manner as above, forgees a letter of delegation to issue a certificate of personal seal impression, which is a private document concerning the rights and obligations of the victim's name, and exercises it in the same manner as above (A);

C. On June 1, 2002, at the same place as above (A) in the same manner as above, forgees a letter of delegation to issue a certificate of personal seal impression, which is a private document concerning the rights and obligations of the victim's name, and exercises it in the same manner as above (A);

2. On June 3, 2002, at the first floor of Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. located in Samsung Nam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 142-43, four insurance policies, such as women’s health insurance, Schlage Home District Insurance, Type 2, and spectrum insurance, the victim was delegated by the victim with the authority to file an application for termination of the above insurance contract and receive refund money for termination of the contract, although he/she did not have been delegated by the victim with the authority to do so, he/she, without the intent to exercise the said authority, shall affix the seal of the victim’s name "(defluence)" and then forge one proxy letter on the application for termination of insurance termination and the receipt of refund money for termination of the contract in the name of the victim, which is a private document concerning the fact-finding, and, at that location, he/she shall submit it to the Newdong Co., Ltd., an employee in charge

3. On June 28, 2002, in the absence of a permit from the victim to sell (automobile registration number omitted) its own (automobile registration number omitted), it is for the victim to sell it to other persons, and without permission, enter the above vehicle number, the victim's name, resident registration number, address, etc. in the form printed without permission for the purpose of exercising it at the defendant's house located in Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong, Seoul, and enter the above vehicle number, the victim's name, resident registration number, address, etc. in the form and enter the above vehicle number, the copy of the motor vehicle sales contract, which is a private document concerning the rights and obligations of the victim's name,

4. On September 23, 2002, at the office Gangnam-gu office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Cheonggu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of exercising the right to peruse the monetary statements by the victim, without permission, for the purpose of exercising the said right as if the victim was delegated with the said right, he forged a letter of delegation for perusal of the monetary details, which is a private document in the name of the victim concerning the fact that the victim delegates the Defendant to peruse the monetary details of the mobile phone in the name of the victim, and exercised it by presenting it to Kim Jong-Un, who is aware of the fact in the said name.

Summary of Evidence

For each fact in the ruling:

Facts No. 1 of the ruling

1. Statements corresponding thereto by the accused in the first trial records;

1. Statement corresponding thereto by the witness in this court;

1. Statements corresponding thereto made by witnesses in the second trial records;

1. The first written protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor, and each statement corresponding thereto among the interrogation protocol of the suspect on November 3, 2003; and

1. Comprehensively taking into account the copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression issued on July 7, 200, copies of power of attorney (in the face of 543 pages), copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression issued on May 28, 200, copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression issued on June 1, 200, copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression issued on June 1, and copies of the certificate of the personal seal impression issued, copies of

Facts No. 2 of the ruling

1. Statements consistent with the accused in the first trial records;

1. Statements corresponding thereto made by witnesses in the second trial records;

1. The first protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor, and each statement corresponding thereto among the protocol of interrogation of the suspect on November 3, 2003; and

1. The statement that corresponds to the statement made on the new line of public prosecutor’s preparation;

1. A copy of an application for insurance contract, a statement of refund for cancellation, and a copy of receipt, a copy of insurance contract receipt, a copy of delegation of insurance contract, and a copy of the insurance termination certificate, corresponding thereto;

Comprehensively,

The facts set forth in the judgment No.3

1. Statements corresponding thereto by the accused in the first trial records;

1. Statements corresponding thereto made by witnesses in the second trial records;

1. The first protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor, and each statement corresponding thereto among the protocol of interrogation of the suspect on November 3, 2003; and

1. A description corresponding to a copy of a motor vehicle transfer certificate;

Comprehensively,

The facts of the judgment No. 4

1. Statements corresponding thereto by the accused in the first trial records;

1. Statements corresponding thereto made by witnesses in the second trial records;

1. Two times a copy of the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the prosecutor, and each statement corresponding thereto among the interrogation protocol of the suspect on November 3, 2003; and

1. A copy of the application for mobile telephone (the same shall apply to a copy of the application for inspection of details of telephone), a copy of power of attorney (an investigation record No. 189), a copy of the statement of telephone, and a statement corresponding thereto in the

Comprehensively

Since each of them can be accepted,

All facts in the ruling are proven.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 231 of the Criminal Act (Influence of Private Document, Selection of Imprisonment), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (Influence of Private Document and Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Grounds for Sentencing)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

On June 13, 1978, the defendant reported a marriage with the victim on June 13, 1978 and entrusted the name of the defendant's property and business to the victim, who is his wife, and had been issued with the victim's personal seal impression as a proxy as required by the need to keep the victim's personal seal impression. Thus, the defendant has a comprehensive authority to prepare a letter of delegation for the issuance of the victim's personal seal impression in order to obtain the victim's personal seal impression certificate, and Article 1-A of the judgment. Paragraph (c) of the judgment was prepared with the victim's explicit consent, and Paragraph (1) of the judgment does not constitute the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of the above personal seal impression certificate.

In light of the above evidence, the victim, after being married with the defendant on June 13, 1978, kept his seal imprint in his own name and delivered it to the defendant upon the defendant's request (the defendant's issuance of his seal imprint certificate on behalf of the victim on April 16, 2002 before the crime under the above paragraph (1) is limited to once on April 16, 2002. This seems to have been individually entrusted to the defendant with the issuance of the victim's seal imprint certificate on the ground that the victim cannot obtain the victim's certificate on his behalf because he did not reside in his residence at the time.) On May 3, 2002, the defendant was strongly doubtful that the victim was able to report that the victim would have different from the non-indicted 1 at night, and the victim was released on May 4, 2002, and on May 6, 2002, the victim was discharged from the defendant's hospital on May 20, 2002.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant has a comprehensive authority to prepare an application for the issuance of a certificate of the personal seal impression in the victim's name. In light of the circumstances where the trust relationship between the defendant and the victim was destroyed at the time of committing the crime under paragraph (1) of the judgment, it cannot be deemed that the victim's explicit and implied consent was made with regard to the preparation of the certificate of the personal seal impression issued by the defendant

Division of Non-Offense

1. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (at night, joint violence)

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant,

(1) From May 3, 2002 to 23:40 on May 3, 2002, the victim (the victim (the victim) who was the wife of the defendant at Seosan-si, Seosan-si (the victim (the victim 44 years old) was unable to do so) with frequent assault by the defendant on the 3rd floor of the operation (the trade name omitted) of the victim (the victim) who was in charge of the defendant at Seosan-si, Seosan-si, and was asked to find the victim who was living in the above place by avoiding the defendant, but on the ground that he did not open the door, did not open the door by opening the door, the victim's head, bridge, arms, etc. who was watching TV in the living room; and

(2) At the date and time set forth in the above paragraph (1) above, the Defendant discovered that Nonindicted Party 1, an external male, was under the influence of alcohol at the inside of the third floor of the above paragraph (1), and the victim thought that he committed the crime of adultery with Nonindicted Party 1 by reporting the victim, etc. as a crime of adultery, and was under investigation with the victim at the Seosan Police Station, which was located at the Seosan Police Station located at the Seosan City, Seosan Police Station, on May 4, 2002. On May 4, 2002, the victim was parked in the front of the above police box, and " Nonindicted Party 1 was under the influence of width on several occasions in Seoul, and used the victim's body over several occasions."

(b) Prosecution of the defendant;

At night on May 3, 2002, the Defendant: (a) sent alcohol to the victim on May 3, 2002; (b) sent to the victim 3rd floor; (c) went to the inside of the house, and (d) came to the outside of the house, and (c) tried to find Nonindicted 1, who was under the influence of alcohol and attempted to flee; and (d) tried to take Nonindicted 1 and pit Nonindicted 1, who attempted to flee; and (e) divided the relationship with Nonindicted 1 into the victim and the victim for the purpose of comparison within the visible vehicle parked in front of the port box on the new wall on May 4, 2002, as such, there was no fact that each assaulted the victim, as described in the facts charged.

(c) Markets:

(1) The statement in the investigation report (to listen to the statement) prepared by the Seoul District Prosecutor's Office in the Seoul District Prosecutor's Office was not consented to the defendant as evidence, and there is no signature or seal of Kimcheon who is a statement, and thus, it is inadmissible.

(2) The statements made by the witness victim in this court, the statement made by the witness victim in the second trial record, the first interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor against the defendant in the second trial record, each statement made by the victim on May 15, 2003, the victim's each statement made on November 10, 2003, and the statement made by the copy of the statement made by the judicial police officer on October 25, 2002 against the victim as well as the statement made by the victim on October 25, 2002 are contents of the victim's statement that corresponds to the above facts charged, and the victim's statement cannot be trusted for the following reasons.

First of all, we will look at the violence on the third floor of May 3, 2002 (trade name omitted).

On October 25, 202, the victim stated that “ Nonindicted Party 1 she was her husband, but the victim was her husband.” On the 2nd day of the police investigation, Nonindicted Party 1 she was her husband, but she was her husband.” On December 26, 2002, the victim was her body at the time of her own questioning with Nonindicted Party 1, who was known before May 3, 2002 at the prosecutor’s office, she was her own meal and drinking, and the victim was her body at the time of her husband’s 1, who was her husband, and the victim was her husband at the time of her husband’s 1, who was her husband’s her husband, but was her husband at the time of her husband’s 1, who was her husband’s her husband, and the victim was her body at the time of her husband’s 1, who was her husband’s her husband’s 1 and her own body.

On May 3, 2002, when discovered at the scene of the facts charged, the defendant consistently stated that it is panty tea, and Non-Indicted 3's statement in this court, which was made at the above site, also corresponds to the defendant's above statement. On December 26, 2002, the victim did not dispute the defendant's statement that it is panty tea when questioning with the defendant at the prosecutor's office, and on November 10, 2003, the defendant made a statement consistent with the defendant's argument on December 28, 2003, because Non-Indicted 3's statement in this court, which was made at the above site, was also panty tea and panty tea, was also inconsistent with the defendant's statement. The victim's statement was not consistent with the defendant's statement on December 28, 2003. Thus, there is no credibility of the victim's statement about the defendant's uniforms.

In addition, on December 26, 2002, the victim stated that the defendant was assaulted by the 3th floor of the above rest area when he was asked to the above 3th floor of the prosecution. On April 29, 2004, the victim stated that the defendant was aware of the fact that he was assaulted by the 3th floor of the above rest area for about one hour during the 1st half of the time period. On the other hand, the defendant entered the 3th floor and asked the victim about Non-Indicted 1 to find and flee, and that the victim was not able to assault the 3th floor (the investigation record No. 357 pages, etc.), and Non-Indicted 3 did not have any time to assault the 3th floor because the victim knew of the above 1st floor and asked the victim about Non-Indicted 1 at the 3th floor of the above rest area. The victim did not have been able to see his credibility by the 3th floor of the 3th floor because he was not able to use his trade name.

Next, this paper will examine the violence on May 4, 2002 in the visible vehicle.

On October 25, 202, the victim stated that "if he was freshed by the defendant within the police box, she would not know whether she was fresh by the above fresh, and that she would be freshly aware of the above facts of violence because she could not know whether she was inside the above fresh," (No. 93 of the investigation record), and that " she was freshly freshed by the defendant within the front fresh of the police box," and that " she was freshly freshed by the defendant within the front fresh of the police box," and that "she was freshly fresh within the front fresh of the police box," and that "she was fresh within the front fresh of the police box," and that "she was freshly fresh by the defendant's body," and that the entire fresh was fresh.

On the other hand, during the trial of the witness, it was difficult to view that the victim was released from the above 5th of May 4, 200, when considering the victim's face at the above 2nd of the police box around 03:0, it was difficult to view that the victim was released from the above 10th of the above 6th of the vehicle, and that the victim was not able to see the trace of the victim's face even when the victim was released from the above 5th of the above vehicle. In light of the above 6th of the above 6th of the 5th of the 6th of the 6th of the 5th of the 6th of the 5th of the 6th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 6th of the 5th of the 6th of the 196th of the 3th of the 2nd of the 3th of the 1st of the 3th of the 3th of the s.

In addition, even if one's wife was suspected of having been under the suspicion of adultery, it is an exceptional case in light of the empirical rule to enter the vehicle immediately before the police box and exercise violence for the wife to stop without stopping, and thus, the victim's above statement as to the assault on May 4, 2002 cannot be trusted by considering the above points.

(3) We examine whether the above facts charged can be admitted as evidence except for the statements made by the above victim.

According to the statement made by the witness Nonindicted 5 in this court, the statement made by the prosecutor Nonindicted 5 in the non-indicted 5, and the statement made by the fact-finding statement of the sexually pathogenic hospital, the fact that the defendant and the victim's father, et al., were detained in various places of the victim's body when the victim was hospitalized in the sexually ill hospital in this city on May 6, 2002 with the defendant on the same day. In light of the circumstances examined in the above paragraph (2), it cannot be concluded that the space of the victim's body recognized by each of the above evidence was caused by the defendant's assault, such as the content of the above facts charged.

On the other hand, on May 6, 2002, the part of the statement made by the prosecutor against Non-Indicted 5 which Non-Indicted 5 asked why Non-Indicted 5 caused a lot of holes to the body of the victim in the presence of the defendant on May 6, 2002, and the part of the statement made by the defendant that Non-Indicted 5 said that "I am a few times when I am a victim" (the face of No. 765 of the investigation record) constitutes a protocol where the statement made by the defendant was made under particularly reliable circumstances pursuant to Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, so it can be admitted as evidence only when the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances. "When the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances" refers to cases where there is little room for false entry that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances, and specific and external circumstances exist to guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do3161, Oct. 9, 2001).

However, on September 25, 1986, Non-Indicted 5 prepared a statement that is favorable to the defendant on October 2002 and December 27, 2002, when the victim was separated from his father on September 25, 1986, when the victim was living together with the defendant who was his father, and the defendant was living together with his father. On June 2, 2003, Non-Indicted 5 prepared a statement that is favorable to the defendant. On June 3, 2003, the defendant's home and her mother were living together with the victim who was the victim and her mother, and revised the above statement to the witness at the Seoul District Court Decision 2002Da10510 on June 3, 2003 and made a statement that is favorable to the defendant (this court's testimony, 596-64, 717-25, 717-5, and 5). Since there is no room to see that the defendant made a false statement and its mental compromise between the victim's.

(4) In addition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge each of the above facts charged, and each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime and thus, the acquittal is pronounced pursuant to the latter part of

2. As to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of private investigation documents concerning each gift contract, and the fraudulent entry of each of the notarial deeds and the uttering of the original notarial deeds

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant,

(1) (A) On May 16, 2002, at the defendant's house located in Samsungdong Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the victim made in advance a donation contract on the rights and duties of the victim in the name of the victim, in the name of the defendant, although the victim did not donate the real estate in the name of the victim in the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant, the victim was under confinement and assault at the above house of the defendant, the purpose of exercising the contract is to make it possible for the certified judicial scrivener mar without permission to make it possible to write down the donation contract with the content that the victim donated the real estate in advance to the defendant, and then to affix the victim's seal impression affixed to the victim's name in his custody after deducting the victim from the victim's name in advance, and to forge one copy of the donation contract, which is a private document on the rights and duties of the victim in the name of the victim.

(B) Around May 20, 2002, at the same time with the donation contract of the above Paragraph (a) above, a document of confirmation drawn up by the victim's crepits and marks the victim's crepans, which was known to be forged through the mark, shall be submitted to the employee in the name of Osan District Court and Osan District Court, and shall be exercised;

(C) have the registry official of the same temporary border enter the fact that the ownership of such real estate has been transferred to the defendant by donation in the register of the real estate in paragraph (a) above, and exercise without delay the right to keep the same;

(2) (A) around May 16, 2002, the victim forged one copy of the donation contract, which is a private document on the rights and obligations under the name of the victim, with the purport that the real estate in the name of the victim in the name of the Masan-si, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Masan-si, Masan-si, Mansan-si, Mansan-si, Mag-si, Mag-si, Mag-si, Mag-si, Mag-si, Mag-si, Mag-

(B) around June 3, 2002, by submitting to the staff of the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court through the error code a document of confirmation secured in the manner referred to in Paragraph (1)(b) above, along with the gift agreement referred to in Paragraph (a) above, to the staff of the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court;

(C) The same temporary border registration official, as described in paragraph (1) (c) above, entered false facts in the registry of the real estate in the above subsection (a) and exercised it immediately.

(b) Prosecution of the defendant;

The defendant asserts that the name of the owner of each of the above real estate was changed to the defendant as stated in the facts charged, but it was made through each gift contract and each of the above confirmation documents prepared with the victim's consent. Thus, the defendant does not forge each of the above gift contract and the confirmation document, and therefore, it is not stated in each of the above real estate registration books.

(c) Markets:

I would like to examine whether the defendant prepared each gift contract and the confirmation document without the consent of the victim.

In accordance with the above facts charged, the witness's statement in the second protocol of the trial, the first protocol of interrogation of the suspect's suspect against the defendant prepared by the prosecutor, the victim's substitute part among the first protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor, May 15, 2003 against the victim, June 10, 2003, October 6, 2003, and November 10, 2003, each protocol of statement of the victim's substitute part among the protocol of statement of the defendant's defense, each statement of the victim's substitute part among the protocol of statement of the defendant's defense counsel, and each statement of the court police officer's assistant on December 3, 2002 against the victim.

On the other hand, the office of the defendant visited the office of the defendant on May 13, 2002 as a gift of each of the above real estate at the court and the prosecutor's office. On the other hand, after agreement on the donation between the defendant and the victim on the donation, the defendant and the victim affixed the victim's seal impression on each donation contract. The victim, who was in possession of the office, was stamped in four copies of the confirmation document form. After returning to the office, the victim made a statement that "the defendant had a female employee enter the indication of the real estate to be registered in the above confirmation form, the registration right holder, the special article article, etc.", and the statement of the appraisal result letter prepared by the Commissioner of the National Police Agency is the same content as the confirmation document prepared under paragraph (1) (b) of the above subparagraph, and it is consistent with the statement of the defendant's defense and the defendant's defense.

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that Non-Indicted 5's statement in this court, Kim Doo-py, each copy of the diagnosis letter prepared by the victim, each copy of the opinion to respond to fact inquiry by the Geanthal Mental Hospital Hospital, each photograph of each photograph alone is prepared with confinement of the victim from the defendant and assault, and each gift contract and confirmation document are insufficient. Rather, according to this court and prosecutor's statement in the above sub-paragraph 5 above, according to the witness's statement, witness's profit, and this court's statement that the victim did not have violence to the extent that the defendant was actually able at the time of preparation of the above gift contract and confirmation document, the victim's statement on the second trial date, Non-Indicted 5's statement on this court, Non-Indicted 1's statement on fact that the victim did not have been able to think of his own real estate from the defendant at the time of delivery to the non-Indicted 1's own phone number and the victim's statement on October 6, 2003.

Therefore, each of the above statements made by the victim, who correspond to the above facts charged, cannot be trusted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged. Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered

Division of the face-to-face Subdivision

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant,

가. 2002. 5. 7.경부터 같은 달 24일경까지 서울 강남구 삼성동 (번지 생략)에 있는 피고인의 집에서 2002. 5. 3. 공소외 1과 (상호 생략) 3층에 함께 있다가 피고인에게 발각된 일로 서산시 "파라다이스 모텔"에 피신해 있던 피해자 피해자을 찾아내 강제로 1일동안 정신병원에 입원시켰다가 위 집으로 끌고와 도망가지 못하도록 방문, 거실문, 대문 등에 자물쇠를 별도로 설치하여 채우고, 피고인의 모, 누나 공소외 6 등으로 하여금 열쇠를 관리하게 하면서 피해자를 감시하게 하는 등의 방법으로 약 17일 동안 음식물을 제대로 주지 않고 피해자를 감금하면서 " 공소외 1과의 간통 사실을 인정하는 자술서를 써라."고 강요하였으나 피해자는 간통 사실이 없다면서 완강히 거부하자 피해자의 옷을 강제로 발가벗겨 나체로 만든 상태에서 쇠로 만든 벽난로 부지깽이, 허리띠, 옷걸이, 각목 등을 이용하여 피해자의 전신을 구타하고, 항거 불능의 상태에 있는 피해자의 음부에 장식용 돌과 헤어브러쉬, 파마루프 등을 집어넣다 뺐다 하고 머리카락을 가위로 자르고, 면도칼로 음모를 밀고 담뱃불로 손등을 지지는 등 구타하여 피해자를 수회에 걸쳐 실신시키고, 물을 뿌려 깨어나게 하고 잠을 자지 못하게 하는 등 가혹행위를 하여 피해자로 하여금 약 2주간 이상의 치료를 요하는 전신다발성좌상, 좌측수부화상 등의 상해를 가하고,

B. At the time and place of the above paragraph (a) above, in a situation where the victim was detained at the victim, it was difficult for the victim to have the broom used as above, and the victim's broom flow out on the part of the victim, but the broom flow out on the part of the victim, the above broom was completely laid off as it is, or the broom was unable to sit, and the victim was raped with Non-Indicted 1" in a fluent residential attitude, such as "the victim got raped with Non-Indicted 1." by forcing the victim to perform a non-obligatory act.

2. Existence of the confirmed summary order; and

약식명령사본(증 제7호증), 서울중앙지방검찰청 검찰주사보 작성의 2004. 4. 8.자 수사보고(미상전과 확인보고)의 각 기재에 의하면, 피고인은 2003. 1. 14. 서울지방법원에서 폭행죄로 벌금 50만 원의 약식명령을 발령받아 2003. 2. 25. 그 약식명령이 확정되었는데, 그 범죄사실은 "피고인이 2002. 5. 10. 시간불상경 서울 강남구 삼성동 (번지 생략) 소재 피고인의 주거지에서 부인인 피해자 피해자(여, 43세)이 간통한 사실대로 자술서를 작성하지 않는다는 이유로 손으로 동녀의 빰을 때리고 발로 동녀의 몸을 차 동녀를 폭행하였다."는 것인 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

3. Determination

(1) Since the identity of facts charged or facts charged is a concept under the Criminal Procedure Act, it shall take into account the significance or legal function of the criminal procedure. Therefore, whether the basic facts of two crimes are identical or not cannot be grasped solely from a pure social and legal point of view without completely excluding the normative elements. It is reasonable to view that such normative elements constitute a substantial part of the identity of basic facts, in addition to whether the natural, social, or defendant's act is identical (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 98Do749, Aug. 21, 1998).

(2) First, we examine the identity of the facts charged against the bodily injury resulting from confinement in the instant case and the facts constituting the crime of assault in which a summary order became final and conclusive.

The crime of serious confinement under Articles 281(1) and 277(1) of the Criminal Act is established when the crime of serious confinement under Article 281(1) and 277(1) causes injury to a person by putting the person under confinement. The above "cruel act" refers to any act of causing physical or mental pain that may endanger the person's life or body. The legal interest protected by the above crime is the freedom of transfer (transfer) and the body (health).

The crime of assault under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Code is established when "Assault is committed against a person's body." The above "Assault" means any unlawful attack, such as exercising force against a person's body, and the protected legal interest of the above crime is complete or inhuman aggression.

In other words, the crime of assault, which was returned to the instant case, and the date and time of the crime was committed while the crime was committed, and all of the crime places were the same as the residence of the said accused, and the above two crimes were committed in the process of forcing the victim to write a written statement on the facts of adultery by suspicion of the relationship between the victim and the non-indicted 1, and the protected legal interests of the crime of assault, which is the physical building, are the same as the motive and the other party to the crime, and the protected legal interests of the crime of assault, which is the physical building, are also protected by the injury of confinement. In full view of the fact that the act of assault, which became guilty, constitutes a suspicion of the injury of confinement, the crime of assault and the injury of confinement in the instant case, which became final and conclusive, are deemed to constitute a crime of assault in the middle of confinement, and the crime of assault in the instant case, which constitutes a crime of assault in the middle of confinement.

Therefore, even though the above assault crime, which became guilty, is about 17 days from May 7, 2002 to May 24, 2002, which is about a day during the confinement period of the serious injury resulting from confinement, it refers to a single-day assault during the 17-day period. Considering that the means and method of the suspicion of the serious injury resulting from confinement in the instant case are more harsh than those of the assault crime in the instant case, it is reasonable to view that the above two crimes, which practically constitute only one crime, are identical to the basic facts, even if considering the natural, social facts, or the criminal defendant's act is identical in accordance with the above legal principles under paragraph (1) above.

(3) Next, we examine the identity of the facts charged of coercion and the facts charged of the crime of assault in the instant case for which a summary order became final and conclusive.

The crime of coercion under Article 324 of the Criminal Act is established when the defendant interferes with another person's exercise of right by violence or intimidation or has another person do an act for which he is not obligated to do so. The legal interest of the crime of assault is the freedom of decision-making and the freedom of its activities. The crime of assault is one of the types of acts, and the date and time of the crime was committed during the period of coercion of this case. The crime of assault was committed in both crimes. The crime of assault was committed in the same manner as the residence of the above defendant. The crime of the above two crimes was committed in the process of forcing the defendant to write a written self-written statement about the crime of adultery because all the defendants are suspected of the relationship between the victim and the non-indicted 1. The other party to the crime is identical, and all the acts of the above two crimes are closely related to a series of acts committed by the defendant under the single criminal intent to receive a written self-written statement about the facts from the victim, taking into account the legal function of identity of facts, and the basic element of the crime is also identical.

(4) Thus, the facts constituting the crime of the above crime of assault, for which a summary order became final and conclusive, and the facts constituting the crime of the above crime of assault and the crime of the above serious confinement and coercion are identical to the social facts that form the basis thereof, and the effect of the above summary order extends to the injury of confinement and coercion among the facts charged in this case. Accordingly, each of the above facts charged constitutes a final and conclusive judgment, and thus, a judgment of acquittal is rendered pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 1

2. Dual Lives

Even if the victim is his/her wife, the defendant has forged and exercised his/her power of proxy on the letter of delegation to issue the certificate of personal seal impression, the letter of delegation to terminate insurance contracts and the receipt of the refund money for cancellation, the motor vehicle sales contract, and the statement of telephone contents perusal application, thereby infringing on the victim's freedom of property and privacy, and damaged the safety and trust of transaction in relation to documents without the victim's consent.

However, the extent of damage caused by the Defendant’s crime of this case is not much significant, the victim runs away from the outside, etc. under suspicion of illegal relationship with the outside man, which causes a certain degree of damage to the Defendant’s crime of this case, and the victim’s improper behavior, etc., the Defendant also suffers a lot of mental and material damage due to the occurrence of a divorce lawsuit by the Defendant due to the victim’s improper behavior, damage between his family members, etc., and the Defendant has no record of punishment except three times of fine, and the Defendant has no record of punishment other than the Defendant’s age, occupation, family environment, and the degree of perception of the opening, etc., shall be determined and sentenced to the suspension of the sentence as per Disposition

Judge Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)