beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Violence;
A. On October 24, 2019, the Defendant assaulted the victim B on October 23:34, 2019, the term “D” in front of the PC bank located in Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, refers to “Isket Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.” on the ground that the victim B (Nam and 19 years of age) who smoked on tobacco,” and the victim’s head was attached once to the left hand, and the victim was assaulted once by the victim’s remaining hand.
B. On October 24, 2019, around 23:50 on October 24, 2019, the Defendant: (a) committed assault against the victim E on the part of the victim; (b) the victim E (Nam and 23 years old); (c) the Defendant’s resistance to the victim that the victim changed his female-friendly implements; and (d) the victim’s defect “Isnhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
2. On October 24, 2019, around 23:50 on October 24, 2019, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s PC management work by force by forcing customers to go on the seat No. 34 above to go on the seat No. 34 in the said PC room, such as “D” to go to go on the game in the Dong-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, and “D” managed by the victim F.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Each statement of B, E, and F;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the field photographs and the 112 Reporting Case List;
1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for negligence;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order are recognizing and opposing his mistake.
It seems that each of the crimes of this case is committed under the incomplete decision-making ability due to mental illness.
However, the defendants are various.