logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.11.14 2014고정227
재물손괴등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. From August 19, 2013 to 10:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) committed an act of disturbance, such as cutting down the floor by using in his/her hand the washing machine, water reservoir, and delivery food, etc., which were stored on the customer’s surface while making a contract with the victim to engage in the business of strikeing up to 20:00 on the ground that it is too difficult for the victim to do so even though he/she entered into a contract to engage in the business of strikeing up to 20:0,00; and (b) the Defendant demanded the victim to change the car fee, but the victim refused it; (c) the victim refused it; and (d) the victim’s refusal to do so.

Accordingly, the defendant, by force, interfered with the restaurant business such as preparation of food delivery for the victim.

2. In the above date, at the above place, the Defendant was faced with the victim D (n, 47 years of age) and was faced with the victim’s head debt by hand, and the victim was faced with two skins requiring treatment for about 14 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (the seventh court date);

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of a fine for the crime, the choice of a penalty, and the choice of a fine for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act, since the defendant's consciousness and gathering, etc. fall short of the victim D and his body fighting in the process of fighting with the victim's D and the victim's body.

arrow