logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.12 2018고정1831
폭행
Text

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

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 16, 2018, from around 12:10 to 12:20, the Defendant, while preparing for a carpet store in front of the building in the eth of the building in the eth of the ethic city B, was a victim D (the age of 41) who is a public official of class 8 of the Dong-dong Branch C Team in the ethic City of Taesung-si, a public official of Grade 8 of the Dong-dong Branch C Team in the eth of the ethic city, was in dispute, the Defendant assaulted the victims by taking two times the body of the victim D by hand, entering into a contract with the E (the age of 23) who supported the street occupation control, and taking away the victim E mobile phone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation report (including the reproduction of video CDs);

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the selection of fines;

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

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

1. The main sentence of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to bear litigation costs;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (Article 334(1) of the same Act is recognized as credibility because the testimony of the witness is inconsistent alternatively with the investigative agency and court, and is inconsistent with other evidence, such as video CDs. The Defendant’s act of assault cannot be deemed as an act of fighting or an act of setting up against illegal performance of official duties, and the Defendant’s change that the victims did not recognize as public official is difficult to believe.

arrow