logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.08.18 2016고단2483
폭행등
Text

1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall be allowed to do any act lying, sitting or standing on a road in a manner likely to obstruct the traffic.

Nevertheless, around 20:05 on May 30, 2016, the Defendant exceeded clothes on the front of the North Korean middle school located in Geumnam-ro 61, Chungcheongnam-gu, Gwangju, and obstructed the traffic of the vehicles by dricking the vehicles, without any particular reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of investigation reports (in the situation, etc. at the time of dispatch to the scene), and statutes to photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and subparagraph 4 of Article 157 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 68 (3) 2 of the same Act, applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The part dismissing a public prosecution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant was arrested in a flagrant act as indicated in the judgment and was detained in the second room of the cell of the police station located in the Gwangju Northern-dong, Gwangju Northern-dong; (b) around May 31, 2016, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s face at one time, i.e., taking the victim’s face from the victim C (22 years), and taking the victim’s face from the head.

2. This part of the facts charged is an offense falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

In doing so, according to the statements of the victim in this court, it is recognized that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish the defendant on August 18, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow