logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.07.09 2013고단2048
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is between a person engaged in the water collection business and a victim B (n, 41 years of age) and a peace.

On February 5, 2013, at around 21:50, the Defendant had a dispute over the issue of business owner at the "D" head office located in Gwangju Mine-gu, and the issue of hedging with E with interested parties, and the Defendant had a dispute over the victim's entry who thought that the two parties are likely to have come to a different extent.

피고인은 말다툼하였던 피해자가 담배를 피우며 자신을 무시하는 듯한 행동을 보이자 화가 난다는 이유로 맥주병을 가게 바닥에 집어 던져 깨뜨린 후, 또 다른 위험한 물건인 맥주병을 손에 든 채로 피해자의 머리채를 잡아 꺽고 이마로 피해자의 이마부위를 들이받아 밀치는 등 폭행하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of B and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of evidence-related photographs

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. In light of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., when the defendant carried a beer's disease, which is a dangerous object, and assaults the victim, a strict punishment shall be imposed against the defendant. However, the defendant repents his/her misconduct and reflects his/her wrong, and the defendant does not have any particular criminal record other than twice a fine, and the defendant does not appear to have used a beer's disease, which is a dangerous object, as a means of direct assault, and the defendant agreed with the victim at the police investigation stage. However, the victim's agreement at the prosecutor's office and the police station's demand for the defendant's obligation against E.

arrow