beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On July 1, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for robbery, etc. at the Daegu High Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 9, 2014.
The Defendant and B together lived in the Daegu-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the U.S. C., the U.S., the Daegu Special Metropolitan City.
On June 20, 2014, at around 21:20 on June 20, 2014, the Defendant assaulted the victim B (30 years of age) at the 1 DongC of the Daegu Prison, the Defendant, “I am able to live together with a luckingr and a driver,” and used the part of the victim’s name at two times, and used the part of the victim’s face at a lush hand twice.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;
1. Each police statement made to D and E;
1. Previous convictions in holding: Application of the Supreme Court Decision (2014No14, A), Court Decision ( Daegu High Court Decision 2014No14, Daegu District Court Decision 2013No299) and subordinate statutes;
1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 260 (1) of the Election of Imprisonment or Imprisonment;
1. The reasons for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Code for concurrent crimes are the same kind of crime, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at the court of appeal in the first instance as stated in the previous records of the judgment, and without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case in this case, and even when the court of appeal became in this case, it is difficult to view that the defendant is against one another by asserting that his mistake was caused by the other party's mistake rather than by the other party's mistake and thus, it is difficult to say that the defendant is against the other party's petition. In light of the degree of damage, the degree of injury, equity in the case where the defendant was punished simultaneously