logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.09 2015고정92
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 18, 2014, around 23:20 on September 23:20, the Defendants pointed out that the victims were able to talk with the Defendants in the E-high speed bus of the Daejeon Complex Terminal bus that was stopped at the head of the Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon Metropolitan City, 1695-gil 30, and issued a warning that the victims were able to talk with the Defendants in a large voice.

Defendant

A The victim, who was seated in the driver's seat of the instant express bus, expressed that "Neman was brought up as it was after the four days was put up, and she was flick." The victim was flicked, and the victim was flicked, and the victim was flicked, and the victim was flicked, and the victim was flicked."

Defendant

B made the victim’s bath, “I am,” and flicked the victim’s breath with his left hand, and flicked the victim’s flick with his flick.

Defendant

A has reached two times the part of the victim by hand while the victim and the trial have continued to remain after getting off from the express bus.

As such, the Defendants jointly assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant A]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Videos of blackbox CDs [Defendant B]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of video Acts and subordinate statutes of black boxes and CDs;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, each of the choice of punishment, and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Defendant A asserted that the victim’s spawn and spawn do not constitute the exercise of force in the crime of assault. However, in full view of the evidence in the judgment, Defendant A’s use of force against the victim’s body and assaulted the victim’s body.

In particular, Defendant A's damage is the victim.

arrow