logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.18 2016고정1735
폭행
Text

All of the public prosecutions against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Defendant B is the representative of the apartment unit E-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, and Defendant C is the same apartment management director, and Defendant A is the same apartment management director.

A. On March 30, 2016, Defendant B committed assault, such as: (a) the victim C (56 years, other than 56) who is the head of the management office in the above E Village management office, posted a notice on the invalidation of the public announcement of the elected representative, on the ground that he did not return the fact-finding public notice requested by the victim to the Gu office for the interest of the Gu office and did not prevent the defective victim from participating in the election, on the ground that he did not return the fact-finding public notice presented by the management office; and (b) the victim’s body was assigned as a knife and attached to the book.

B. Defendant C assaulted the victim, such as putting clothes of the victim in the process of physical fighting in order to bring the victim B (S 61, South) who did not return the official door related to the fact-finding of the Gu Office in the interest of the Gu Office, and take the defective documents, at the same time and place as above.

(c)

Defendant

A As above, Defendant C, who is the chief of the management office, committed violence against the victim, by reporting that the victim B spacs each other in order to take the documents from the victim B, and by spacing the body of the victim B.

2. We examine the judgment. The case is a crime falling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Code, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Code. According to the records, each victim's intention not to punish each defendant after the institution of the prosecution of this case is recognized. Thus, the prosecution of this case against the defendants is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow