logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.27 2018고정2347
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(운전자폭행등)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 4, 2018, at around 11:59, the Defendant spited the Defendant’s car at front of the corporate bank located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, with the vehicle located in front of the Defendant’s car at the front of the corporate bank, on the ground that Cpoter truck operated by the victim B (50 years of age) was cut down on the Defendant’s car in front of the Defendant’s car, and used a detailed attitude as it seems that the victim’s face level would be when the victim’s automobile was cut up with the victim’s automobile in front of the Defendant’s car.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. B written statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning internal investigation reports (CCTV search);

1. Article 5-10 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Selection of fines concerning the crime;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bears litigation costs

1. 주장 피고인은 B에게 침을 뱉는 시늉을 하였을 뿐 실제로 침을 뱉지 아니하였다.

2. The following circumstances that can be recognized by this court's duly adopted and investigated evidence, i.e., B, the Defendant consistently states the facts of spitation on his face and its circumstances around June 4, 2018 from the investigative agency to the court. ② The statement of D and E conforms to the above statements of B, and even CCTV images that unspit the site of this case, the Defendant's act of spitation on B's face is shown to be consistent with the statement of B, such as: (i) the Defendant’s spitation on the face of B that he was spiting on the driver's seat; and (ii) the statement of D and E conforms to the above statements of B; and (iii) the CCTV images that unspit the site of this case are taken by the Defendant toward the face of B that he was spiting on the driver's seat of the truck.

arrow