logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.03.19 2018고정247
과실치상
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. On May 5, 2017, the Defendant visited the head of his house residing near Gyeonggi-gun B, Gyeonggi-do, and led the Defendant to take 2 marine and prepare a book at that place (presumed Magsan).

On May 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) reported that the victim’s dog was seriously obstructed by the victim’s dog located in the 39 years old-gun of Gyeonggi-do around May 16:0, 2017 at around 16:0, the Defendant stayed for about 5 minutes on the victim’s side by making the victim’s dog was tightly obstructed.

The above behavior of Defendant Appellant resulted in severe pressure on the part of the above victim, and the noise from the opening of the opening has persisted for a long time, and the victim and his family members suffered damage to the victim and his family members of the defendant, such as the victim and his family members entering the above place and the Defendant “this opening is clear to the string, so the Defendant’s opening is likely to harm or threaten people.” As such, the Defendant’s opening was not bound to block the above opening, and the Defendant’s opening did not neglect his duty of care to prevent various accidents, such as putting the string over the string, and over the string part of the victim’s left part of the blue, which requires treatment for about four weeks, and caused damage to the land and power lines, and damage to the brug, which requires treatment for about four weeks.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 266(2) of the Criminal Act.

In this regard, according to the written agreement bound in the trial records, the victim can be acknowledged on December 6, 2017, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted, that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow