logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.12 2016고단3797
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 6, 2016, around 02:20 on October 6, 2016, the Defendants became a trial expense for the reason that the victim E (the 49 years of age) who was passed in the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Flapsed the Defendants, but the Defendant A was tightly sealed the victim’s chest by his hand, and the Defendants continued to have the victim’s face by drinking and shot.

As a result, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the part of the victims, such as the spathal of the baby in need of approximately three weeks of medical treatment, and the open wound of the spathal in need of medical treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. A photograph of a CCTV image to be cut;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (a case of attaching photographs on the part of the victim's wife);

1. The Defendants: Article 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for negligence

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Victim Return Defendant B: Article 333 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendants asserted that since they committed the instant crime under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, the punishment should be mitigated.

2. According to the records, it is recognized that the Defendants were in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, the Defendants asserted that the instant crime was assaulted by both parties, not a special robbery, and stated in a relatively concrete memory of various circumstances at the time of the crime, and the victim’s face is memory, and immediately after the instant crime was committed, such as the background and method of the instant crime, method and time of the crime, and the situation before and after the commission of the crime, including the fact that the victim escaped or escaped.

arrow