logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.15 2013고정6731
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

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

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 1, 2013, at around 03:32, the Defendants jointly carried out a dispute with the victim E(the age of 31) on the ground that the victim E(the age of 31) was d'D convenience store in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul Metropolitan Government (the age of 31) was frighted to the Defendant, and Defendant A took part in the body of the victim who continued to take over the victim's head by hand and went beyond the victim's head by hand.

As a result, the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim, such as a franchising, which requires approximately five weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate (investigative records No. 78 pages);

1. The Defendants: Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the punishment of crimes;

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the facts charged on July 1, 2013: (a) around 03:32, Defendant B assaulted the victim’s interest store “D convenience store located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul Metropolitan Government (65 years old) to see that the victim F (65 years old) was at the time when the victim B was the victim’s son; and (b) took the victim’s interest by cutting down the victim’s bry and cutting down the victim’s her son.

2. The facts charged in this part of the judgment are crimes 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. According to the written agreement bound in the records, it is apparent that the victim withdrawn his/her wish to punish Defendant B on May 8, 2014, which is the date of the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part of the indictment is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow