logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2014.06.17 2014고단598
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

Criminal facts

At around 19:50 on March 15, 2014, the Defendant operated the truck on the front side of the Seojin-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seojin-gu, 39 large apartment commercial building on the front side of the 39 large apartment commercial building at the time of the front day of the 19:50 on March 15, 2014, and, at the time of the accident, the truck felled from the truck and became an accident with the driver’s car and course, and the victim stated, “I have known that I would have come to know that I would have come to know. I would have come to know that I would have come to know. I would have come to be. I would have d. d. d. . . . .. ..............” again, the victim and the passenger, who is the passenger on the truck, and damaged the victim C and the passenger on the 19th day of the 81,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. Each investigation report and evidential materials attached thereto;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each damaged photograph and estimate;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of assaulting carrying dangerous things), Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of destroying and damaging dangerous things)

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime in this case and reflects in depth the mistake, that the result of the multiple damage was not much serious, and that the victims want to take the front line of the defendant by mutual consent with the victims).

arrow