logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2012.09.28 2012고정388
폭행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 80,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 50,000 shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant has committed the following crimes under the state that the defendant has a weak ability to distinguish things and make decisions due to mental illness:

around 07:55 on March 6, 2012, the Defendant discussed the issue of noise between the victim C (52 years of age) and the floor of the Defendant residing on the upper floor of the Defendant in the 1st floor parking lot of Ansan-si Btel in Masung-si, Around 07:55, and assaulted the victim's arms with broom (150cm in length) located on the said parking lot.

Around 11:00 on 28, 2012, the Defendant starting from a bamboo bus terminal located on the part of the deceased on the surface of the deceased on 11:00, and assaulted the victim E head part of the victim, who was seated on the back seat of the defendant on a DNA bus operated to the bus terminal at Pyeongtaek-si bus, with the bank possessed by the defendant on the back seat of the defendant on one occasion, and assaulted the victim on four occasions on the part of the victim's head.

Summary of Evidence

"2012 High-Governing388"

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect C by the police: "2,01, 434";

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements to E, F and G;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 of the same Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is affirmed, but all of the crimes of this case constitute self-defense. However, in light of the circumstances revealed in the above evidence at the time, the above argument on the premise that there was an unfair infringement against the defendant cannot be accepted.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow