(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.07.27 2014고단891

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.07.27 2014고단891

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, by imprisonment with labor of Defendant B in one year and six months, and by a fine of 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 20, 2013, at around 11:10 on November 20, 2013, Defendant A and Defendant B exceeded the safety cap, which is a dangerous object that was used as a trace of the victim’s breath by cutting down the breath from the safety cap, at the site of Gridge construction in Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, and 201, and at the same time, Defendant B left the victim’s right side with the iron, which is a dangerous object.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit violence against the victim by jointly using dangerous objects, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as a spambrying, which requires treatment for about 14 days.

2. When Defendant C and the victim A(the age of 45), the victim B(the age of 49), and the victim B(the age of 49), the Defendant met the victim A's head by drinking, and met the victim A's head by drinking. The Defendant met the victim B's head by drinking.

As a result, the defendant suffered injury to the victims, such as salt dynasty, which requires approximately 14 days medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal facts of No. 1】

1. Entry of each part of the defendant A and B in the first trial record;

1. Statement made by C by a witness in the third protocol of trial;

1. An investigation report (to listen to the statement at the H phone, and a report on the investigation report (to listen to the I telephone statement of a police officer in charge of this case);

1. A written diagnosis of injury (investigative records No. 26 pages);

1. The Defendant A asserts that the steel franchising photograph, criminal implements, and damaged franchising franchising the victim C’s franchising franchising, and the franchising off the safety franchising, does not constitute a fact that the victim C’s face was franchising, and Defendant B asserts that there was no fact that the victim C’s right buckbucks were involved in the victim C’s right bucks, and the victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to this court, and the victim’s part and degree of the injury suffered by the victim C are consistent with his/her statement.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2020.11.05 2020노1574

-광주지방법원 2020.10.29 2020고단2001

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2013.01.23 2012고단1107

-수원지방법원 2016.05.12 2016고단733

-의정부지방법원 2016.11.18 2016고단4133