logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.07.06 2017고정163
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won, and Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 1,500,000 won.

The Defendants respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 21, 2016, Defendants A and B jointly engaged in the joint crime with the victim C (the remaining and 53 years of age) around 17:00 on August 21, 2016, and they were in common with the victim C (the victim South and 53 years of age) around ASEAN, but Defendant A was salping the victim’s bomb, and Defendant B was also in combination with the victim B, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as the dump dump, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. At the time and place specified in paragraph 1, Defendant C suffered bodily injury, such as a felball, which requires approximately six weeks of treatment to the victim, by taking the victim’s face from drinking to drinking at the time and place specified in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal facts No. 1】

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant A and B

1. Each legal statement of a witness G, H, I, J, K, and C;

1. A medical certificate of injury (C);

1. On-site photograph [Article 2 of the Criminal Act]

1. Defendant C’s legal statement

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspect (A and B);

1. An injury diagnosis certificate (A);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions and choice of punishment on the crime;

(a) Defendant A and B: Article 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (elective selection of punishment)

B. Defendant C: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (Optional to a punishment)

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendants A and B of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and their defense counsel asserted as follows.

Defendant

A did not catch Defendant C’s breath, and Defendant B only left clothes to restrain Defendant C’s assault, but did not boom Defendant C’s breath.

However, G, H, I, J, and K, which observed the dispute between Defendant A, B, and Defendant C, have consistently made a statement at the investigative agency to the effect that the Defendant A and B was shaking the bridged by Defendant C, and their statements are credibility by mutual agreement.

In addition, the background of the dispute in which one witness stated (Defendant B and Defendant C are mutually different.

arrow