(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.23 2018고정959

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.23 2018고정959

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On December 2, 2017, at around 14:00 on December 14, 2017, the Defendant demanded that the sales contract for commercial buildings prepared by the victim E (or 38 years of age) be revised in the sales office located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment D, and the Defendant spreaded water in the face of the Defendant who did not respond to this request, and ppuri B spreads water contained in the paper cup into the victim’s face on the face of the victim, and sleeps the victim’s head debt when the victim’s head debt can be taken off, and the Defendant sought a contract to have the victim’s face and sleeps the victim’s head debt. The Defendant combined with B and divided the victim’s side side side side kne.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim jointly with A.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, we examine whether the Defendant: (a) sought a written agreement towards the victim’s face; (b) knee the victim’s head debt; and (c) kneeee the victim’s side side kneekne, thereby assaulting the victim in common with B.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to believe that the respective statements made by E and F investigative agencies and this court are in accord with them, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(1) The details of the alternative crime before and after shall be as follows:

The Defendant was introduced by B, the representative of the real estate brokerage office, around August 2017.

Victims and F are employees of the sales office.

The victims of the war shall prepare a commercial sale contract in which the phrase “excluding value-added tax” is not written.

In this case, it seems that the victim could have suffered loss with respect to the burden of value-added tax 12 million won.

The defendant and the victim are related to the burden of value added tax.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2019.01.31 2018고정366

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2014.01.15 2013고정478

-창원지방법원 2013.07.25 2013노47

-창원지방법원 밀양지원 2019.10.15 2019고단353

-광주지방법원 2014.06.26 2014고단1484