(영문) 제주지방법원 2013.12.19 2013고합102

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2013.12.19 2013고합102

강도상해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 18:30 on January 16, 2013, the Defendant, “D” located in Jeju-si, “D”, galloned a S2 smartphone from around 18:20 to outside of the gallon owned by the customer E, and entered the victim F (25 years of age) who is an employee of the said store, into the said gallon, and entered the victim F (25 years of age) by getting the said mobile phone from the Defendant and return the said mobile phone to E, thereby putting the victim’s body by hand and getting the galleg over the floor, thereby making the victim go beyond the floor, which requires two-day medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G, F, and E;

1. The results of the reproduction of CCTV images No. 14 in this court of evidence list No. 14

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each photograph and diagnostic document;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The outline of the assertion shall not have inflicted any injury on the victim;

2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, namely, ① in the investigative agency and this court, the victim stated that “the Defendant was feasible to the victim’s bridge, and the victim was knee and knee and kneb, but the victim was not feasd to the open side due to this,” which correspond to the reproduction results of CCTV in this court, and the image of each photograph, and ② the victim was issued a diagnosis “in the I-type department” at Jeju on January 17, 2013 following the following day of the instant case, taking into account the following facts: (a) the victim’s statement at the investigative agency and this court that “the victim was feasd to the victim’s bridge; (b) the victim was feasd to the victim’s statement; and (c) the victim was feasd to the above statement; and (d) the fact that the victim inflicted an injury on the victim by damaging the victim’s bridge as indicated in the Defendant

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel are the same.

참조조문

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2012.6.29. 선고 2012고정52 판결

-제주지방법원 2012.06.29 2012고정52

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.01 2015고정2326

-서울북부지방법원 2016.10.06 2014고정2564

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.06.02 2015고단3372