logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.24 2017고정3660
상해등
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 19, 2017, at around 00:26, the Defendant was informed that the victim D (22 tax) who was a social service personnel engaged in the duty of guiding passengers, etc. while being under the influence of alcohol, was able to go out of the history, and became able to go out of the history, even though the mountain force of Incheon, which was located in the Dongbcheon-si B, 201.

The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, she was seated in a passenger waiting room in the above history, she “I amnit to the customer.”

”라고 하자 “ 이 새끼가 어 따 대고 반말이야 ”라고 소리치며 오른 발로 피해자의 낭 심 부위를 1회 찼다.

As a result, the Defendant brought the victim a wing back, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment, and, at the same time, assaulted the victim engaged in the duties such as railroad facility management, thereby hindering the performance of duties of railroad workers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Results of factual inquiries into E members;

1. C CCTV video CDs;

1. A photo of the damaged part;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 78 (1) and Article 49 (2) of the Railroad Safety Act (the point of obstructing the performance of duties by railroad workers) concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (Punishments imposed on the crimes of serious injury);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that there was no humping or assaulting the victim. However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such as the victim's consistent statement about the situation at the time of the occurrence of the case, and the C CCTV video which shows the situation before and after the occurrence of the case, the defendant used the victim who is a railroad employee to assault and injure the victim and interfere with the railroad employee's performance of duties.

arrow