logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.12 2013고단3570
재물손괴등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 02:30 on April 30, 2013, the Defendant ordered 'D' restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and ordered 'D' 'D' to E (n', 55 years of age) who is its employee, but was rejected from E, the Defendant damaged the property stored in the above restaurant, such as 'D' restaurant, 'do not have any waves' and 'Y' and 'Woo-k' and 'Woo-k, etc., 'Woo-kak' and 'Woo-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak-kak

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Selection of a selective fine for punishment (the agreement was reached with G in the instant restaurant business proprietor G in the amount agreed to pay 2 million won to G in the agreed amount, and G in the case that G is deemed to have the Defendant’s wife, and that it is led to confession and rebuttal, etc.);

1. The dismissal of public prosecution under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. On April 30, 2013, the Defendant ordered a 'D' restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and ordered 'D' 'D' to the victim E (here 5 years old) who is an employee, but was refused from the victim to "shall not have any fright.' On the other hand, the Defendant assaulted the victim by following the table of the food that he was frightd and frighted, taking the 'D' restaurant down in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and taking the 'D' restaurant down to the victim.

2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. Since the victim made a statement that he/she would not want to be punished against the defendant on September 24, 2013, which was after the public prosecution of this case was instituted, the prosecution of the above facts charged is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow