logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.09.01 2016고단1235
폭행등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 24, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 22:50 on March 24, 2016, she was working in the Macheon-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, on a C B (year 56) taxi operated by the victim B (age 56) and was working in the Sungdong-dong

The Defendant tried to get off from a taxi in the vicinity of the Dong-dong High School located in 305, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, on the ground that the victim is driving along another path he knows.

Accordingly, the victim saw the defendant, intending to put up a taxi, and the defendant under the influence of alcohol assaulted the victim's chest on two occasions.

2. The Defendant damaged the victim’s property by taking out the date, time, and place described in paragraph (1) in a way that the sum of the repair cost of the 1,100,390 won, which is the sum of the repair cost of the 2nd si in front of the si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. A repair expense statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing photographs of damaged vehicles;

1. Relevant Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and Article 266 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes;

1. Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment for four months to one year; and

(a) Class 1 (Destruction of and Damage to Property, etc.) basic area (4 to 10 months) - No special person:

(b) Category 1 (General Violence) and basic area (2 to 10 months) of the crime of assault: None of them;

(c) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: April to January; and

2. That the Defendant’s decision on sentencing recognized all crimes in this Court is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the defendant had been punished for suspended execution or a fine for violent crimes at 13 times, and even though he had been punished for suspended execution in 2014, he did not throw away the habit of violence and did again commit the crime in this case.

arrow