logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2013.11.28 2013고정395
폭행치상
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 22:30 on February 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) arrived at the above place on board a private taxi operated by the victim C (the 57-year-old age); (b) brought the victim’s clothes at one time at the left top part of the victim’s clothes due to drinking at the right side of the victim’s clothes; and (c) brought the victim’s injury to the victim, such as the pressure of the 2nd conjective body, which requires approximately 10 weeks of treatment due to the shock of the victim’s concrete.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal room for the witness C;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Part C of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (report on hearing opinions by a doctor in charge);

1. Relevant Article 262 of the Criminal Act and Articles 262 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 32(1)3 and 25(3)4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits to Dismiss Application for Compensation (which might substantially delay the trial proceedings due to an order for compensation)

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the victim first dumpeds the bomb and bomb, but the victim did not commit violence against the victim, and thus, the victim is not liable for the injury inflicted upon the victim.

2. According to the evidence of the judgment, the victim argued that the defendant, consistently in the police and the court of law, consistently less than the money marked on the merta, and attempted to flee, had the defendant's clothes retailed one time by drinking the victim's left part of the victim's clothes, and the defendant suffered from the injury of the pressure frame of the victim by placing the victim's clothes into concrete drainage, due to the shock. On the other hand, the defendant tried to spath the victim's flap.

arrow