logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.06.22 2016고단2127
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)
Text

The indictment against the Defendants is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that at around 04:05 on January 9, 2016, the Defendants: (a) sealed Defendant A from a F club located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu to the victim G (34 years old); (b) Defendant A was pushed ahead of the victim G’s bridge.

Recognizing that misunderstandings the face of the victim one time at the hands of the victim, and Defendant B reported that the victim was faced with an assault from the victim’s working behaviors at the victim’s speed, and misunderstanding that the victim’s face was removed by Defendant B.

F club security personnel called the face of Victim H(24)(C) who is the F club security personnel.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly committed violence to the victims.

2. Determination

A. The meaning of “jointness” under Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship among the Defendants. The Defendants recognized the assault committed by different defendants in the same opportunity at the same place and used it.

In light of the facts and circumstances shown in the pleading and the record, the defendants recognized the violence of each person and used it to make the victims as stated in the facts charged.

It is difficult to see it.

Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) against the Defendants was proven without any reasonable doubt.

In short, there is no other evidence.

Defendants are customers who visited a club by day, and victim G also visited a club.

Defendant

A assaulted a victim G and Si reserve attached to a club as stated in the facts charged.

G was not subject to violence from the police to Defendant B.

At the time of statement (44 pages of investigation record). Defendant B merely viewed Defendant A as disputing other persons, and did not regard the above specific act of assault as an act of assault by Defendant A.

arrow