logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.10.10 2013고단3031
과실치상
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who conducts the "C" maintenance business, and the victim D (n'e, 45 years of age) is free from office.

At around 19:30 on January 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) 294-1 of Daegu Jung-gu, Daegu-gu, 294-1; (b) and (c) fluoring the victim who was fluor in the afterma in the process of spreading the victim who was fluorcing in front of the meeting park; and (d) 4 fluorcing the victim from the treatment date due to such fluorcing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Attachment of photographs of a victim's sloping sloping);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 266 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The grounds for conviction and sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the defendant and his/her defense counsel are true that he/she is friendly with the victim during his/her influence. However, he/she did not have any fluence to the extent that the victim's influences the victim's name, and there is a high possibility that the victim's influence that his/her influences the victim's influences would have been deprived or abandoned for other reasons. Thus, the defendant's act and the victim's injury have no causation between the defendant's influence and the victim's injury. However, according to each of the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the defendant's influences the victim's influence of fighting and that the victim's influence was deprived of the victim's front condition since

Even if it is reasonable to view that the victim suffered an injury with four preceding parts of the elbel joints of the victim, and therefore, there is a causal relationship between the defendant's negligence act and the injury of the victim.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is without merit.

The defendant's crime of this case is an negligent crime, and the victim's state is not good. It is also necessary to expand damage.

arrow