logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.30 2019고정334
상해등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 9, 2012, the injured Defendant drinking alcohol, such as the victim AB, within the fish house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu Seoul. On November 21:30, 2012, and then, the injured Defendant her drinking alcohol, such as the victim AB, “When having been released from the house for a long time, she tried to do so, she would have the victim’s face, so far as she can be seen as drinking, she would tear the victim’s treatment days, etc., and suffered serious injury to the left part of the left part.

2. The Defendant causing property damage, at the time and place set forth in the above paragraph 1 above, destroyed the free window of the vehicle so that the free will of the vehicle can walk the front section of the ACW car owned by the victim due to shooting for the foregoing reasons. The Defendant damaged the free will of the vehicle so that the free will of the vehicle can walk with the front part of the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. An interrogation protocol of AB;

1. AD's statement;

1. Photographs of damaged parts;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing damage to property), and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act) states that there is no intention to inflict property damage because the defendant and the victim are in dispute because they assault the victim with regard to the part of the bodily injury and do not inflict any injury under the Criminal Act, and with regard to the part of the damage and damage of property, the motor vehicle is broken away with the victim. However, the defendant and the victim are in dispute with the victim, according to the circumstances where the victim is teared (the victim's statement) and photographs at the time of the victim, etc., it is sufficiently recognized that the crime of injury like the facts charged is established against the defendant

arrow