본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.04.30 2013고정1263

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.


Punishment of the crime

At around 09:30 on October 22, 2012, the Defendant assaulted the victim, such as d(54 years of age) and salkeing, etc., on the ground that the Defendant did not go to traffic control at the 2nd floor C office of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western District Office, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Seoul, on the ground that he did not go to traffic control with the victim D(54 years of age).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. E testimony;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the protocol of examination of witnesses against D and F of the third protocol of trial;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (including that there are criminal records against the defendant and that there are circumstances to consider the developments leading to the assault in this case);

(a) Punishment to be suspended: 300,000 won;

B. At the time of detention in a workhouse: (a) around 09:30,00 won per day (Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act); (b) the accused and the defense counsel’s assertion on the defendant and his defense counsel; and (c) around October 22, 2012, D took a bath on the ground that the defendant does not continue to control his duty; and (d) first, the defendant was seated at the seat of the defendant; and (c) the defendant was prevented from doing so in good hands for the purpose of defending the defendant; (d) however, according to the statements made at the investigation agency and court of D, E, F, the defendant went to the victim’s desire to see himself while going to go to his office; and (d) the fact that the defendant and the defense counsel met with D, which is a work bonus, and thus, it was found that the defendant and the defense counsel did not have any unlawful grounds for infringement; and (d) the defendant’s assertion was without merit at the time of such infringement.