A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Crime of Violence against Drivers, etc.)

The grandchildren (the name of the grandchildren) South 80. Raw Sheon

Residential Ulsan

Prosecutor

The delay of gambling (prosecution) and leapon-line (public trial)

Ulsan District Court Decision 2019Gohap2905 Decided November 6, 2019

June 25, 2020

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than four months.

Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 9 million. If the Defendant did not pay the fine of KRW 100,000,000, the Defendant B shall be confined to the head of the Nowon Station for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day.

An order to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine shall be issued.

This kind of crime master room

피고인 은 2017. 11.23. 울산지방법원에서 상해죄로 징역 3월 을 선고받고, 2018.2. 19. 울산 구치소 에서 그형 의 집행을 종료하였다. 피고인 은 2019. 7. 25. 01:30경 울산 남구 대학로 근처 도로에서 피해자 권운전(가명, 52 세 ) 이 운전 하는 울산##@####호 택시에 탑승하여 가던 중 택시요금 문제로 피해자 - 4 - [ wingcomm - 2020.06.26 ( 16:41:28)판결문검색시스템에서 출력된 문서로 내부업무참고 목적 외 사용,유출금지.]와 말다툼 을 하다가울산 울주 천상중앙길 앞 도로에 이르러 갑자기왼손 주먹으로 운전 중인 피해자 의 오른쪽 얼굴부위를 1회 때리고, 재차 왼손으로 피해자의 뒷목과 뒤 통수 부위 를 잡고 밀쳤다. 계속 하여 피고인 은 피해자가 위 택시를 갓길에 정차하자 주먹으로 피해자의 얼굴을 마구 때렸다.

Accordingly, Defendant assaulted the driver of the vehicle in operation. Summary of evidence (Omission)

Application of Acts and Subordinate Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions and selection of punishment on the facts of crime;

Article 5-10(1) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Penalty)

1. Invitation in a workhouse;

The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2)1 of the Criminal Act is that there are many punishment records against the Defendant for the same kind of violent crime under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Defendant committed the same kind of violent crime; Defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of repeated crime; Defendant already committed the crime of obstruction of business during the period of repeated crime; Defendant already committed the crime of this case at a point of time from one month even though he was sentenced to a fine for the crime of obstruction of business during the period of repeated crime; however, Defendant is deemed to have committed the crime of this case again at a point of time after he was sentenced to a punishment for the crime of obstruction of business during the period of repeated crime; Defendant is led to the confession of the crime of this case; Defendant was agreed with the victim

[Attachmentcomm - In the process of preventing the escape of the defendant before paying the taxi fee in writing printed out of the judgment search system (16:41:28) and preventing the defendant from using it for any purpose other than the purpose of attending the internal affairs, and releasing it, the defendant's hand knife that resulted in the crime of this case by contingently taking into account all the circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and making a decision on the sentence as ordered.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

It is unfair that the original judgment is too uneasible.

2. Determination

It is recognized that there is a confession of the instant criminal act by the Defendant, the fact that the instant criminal act is deemed to have been committed by contingency after drinking, and the victim is not wanting to be punished by the Defendant’s agreement with the victim.

However, Defendant assaulted a victim who has driven a taxi, and this crime is more serious than a general violent crime in that it not only infringes on the victim’s physical and legal interests, but also may cause danger to traffic order and citizens’ safety, etc. The Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime even though he has been punished several times due to violent crimes. In particular, Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, even though he had been punished several times, he was under the control of a fine during the period of repeated crime, but has already been under the control of a fine. Therefore, a sentence of punishment corresponding to the liability for such crime is inevitable.

In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, such as Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed on the grounds that the appeal by the public prosecutor is well-grounded, and the judgment shall be rendered as follows.

[Discied Judgment] The same is as indicated in each of the relevant columns of the judgment of the court in charge of criminal facts and the summary of evidence support. Application of statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions and selection of punishment on the facts of crime;

Article 5-10(1) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Selection of Imprisonment

1. Aggravation of repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a month to ten years;

2. The scope of recommending sentences according to the sentencing standards.

[Determination of Type] Violence Crimes 03. Violence Crimes / [Type 1] General Violence Crimes

[Special Sentencings] Reductions: Non-Provision of Punishments

Aggravations: In the event of assaulting a driver of a motor vehicle in operation, the same repeated crime;

[Scope of Recommendations and Recommendations] Aggravation, 4 months to 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment

3. The reasons for the decision of the sentence and the reasons for the reversal of the sentence, and all the conditions of the sentence shown in the record, and the sentencing criteria of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee shall be determined in the same way as the order is given, taking comprehensive consideration

Judges Lee Lee-chul-chul

Judges Shin Sung-sung

Judges Full-time Residents

Ulsan District Court Decision 200

sales agreement

G. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Crime against Drivers, Violence, etc.)

Jin-Won-Won-Won-Won 80.Won-Won-Won

The delay of prosecution, the stay of prosecution (prosecutions) and the full completion of Kim Tae-tae (Trial)

legal counsel (Korean National Assembly)

November 6, 2019

Judges’ or higher leaves

- - Other

[Attachmentcomm - Documents printed out from the judicial search system (16:41:28) dated 2020.06.26 (16:41:28) Prohibition of internal participation and use or outflow of documents for any purpose other than internal participation.]