logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.03.21 2018고단4297
특수폭행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 02:30 on August 13, 2018, the Defendant: (a) reported the victim C (55 years of age) (a taxi driver) who was a taxi driver while waiting for passengers at the seat of the Daejeon-dong-dong-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-dong-gu, to refuse boarding; and (b) provided her ficial relationship with the victim on the ground that the victim she had her son at the back seat of the Defendant, "I would have refused boarding at any time" and "I would have caused the victim to have his her ficial dispute." On the other hand, the Defendant rapided the ficial part of the victim, which is a dangerous object, and ficial part of the victim ficial part of the victim ficial part of the victim ficial part of the victim ficial part of the victim ficial part of the victim ficial part of the victim ficial part.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on black stay images;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 261 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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

1. Although it does not reach an agreement with the victim on the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the sentence as ordered is determined by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the defendant recognized the error of the crime of this case and made a serious reflection; (b) there is no record of the crime beyond the fine of the defendant; (c) there are circumstances that may be taken into account the circumstances leading to the crime of this case; and (d) other conditions of the sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant’s age

arrow