logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2014.04.01 2014고정15
폭행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is in the position as a pastor of the D church in the 2-4th floor of the building of the 5th floor in the Jeonbuk-gun, North Korea.

In addition, the victim E (Nam, 60 years old) is the 9 stud owners of the 5th floor of the above building, and the dispute arises with the residents of the 1-4th floor of the same building due to the apportionment of the management expenses for the building, and the defendant alone bears the management expenses for the 5th floor of the above building, and the rest of the 1-4th floor occupants selected the defendant as the representative and bear the management expenses.

However, from February 201 to September 2012, the victim was in charge of the management of buildings and elevators as the representative of the management body of the above building from February 201 to September 201. Since the contract term under the elevator repair inspection agreement entered into by himself/herself is from March 1, 201 to February 28, 2013, the victim asserted that he/she was responsible for the safety inspection of elevators within that period, and requested two employees of the elevator repair business entity on the fifth floor of the above building to inspect the elevator on the fifth floor.

In order to hear the statement that the victim, not the representative of the above building management body, has changed the elevator controlled entity and conducted an elevator safety inspection in another controlled entity, and to resist it, the defendant, together with G, the first floor occupant of the building, changed the elevator controlled entity to the victim's rooftop in the manner of why why the victim was dissipated, changed the elevator controlled entity in the manner of why he was dissipated, took a large view as to whether the inspection was conducted, and boomed the victim's breath, and did violence to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning G police statements;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

arrow