(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.09.14 2018고합105

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.09.14 2018고합105

상해치사

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 26, 2018, around 01:18, the Defendant: (a) was moving to the back seat of a taxi operated by the victim E (71) in the vicinity of the location of D bank (71) located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “C”); (b) was able to take a walk while getting on the back seat of the taxi in operation; (c) was able to take a walk at around 01:25 on the same day; (d) the Defendant continued to take a driver’s seat before and after getting out of the front of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Apartment apartment; (d) was tightly tighted by the victim; (e) the victim was driving the taxi to the damaged taxi; and (e) the victim was able to drive the 112 report again; and (e) the victim was able to take the phone with the seat of the victim, resulting in the victim’s death, resulting in the victim’s injury to the victim’s face, and (e) the victim was hurted to the victim’s left.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The second written protocol concerning the examination of the accused to the prosecution;

1. Each response to a request for appraisal;

1. Details of recording of taxi boxes;

1. Application of field photographs and CCTV-fagic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 259 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Determination as to the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion under Articles 32 (1) 3 and 32 (2) and 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits to Dismiss an application for compensation order (the scope of the defendant's liability and the standard for calculating the amount of damage are unclear and it is not appropriate to issue a compensation order in the criminal procedure)

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant was in a state of being boomed at the time of the instant case, and such circumstance should be reflected at least on the grounds of mitigation, as the Defendant was in a mental and physical disorder (such as mental and physical weakness

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the Defendant was aware of drinking with the person at the time, and the Defendant.

참조조문

-형법 제259조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.01.23 2017고단4223

-서울서부지방법원 2017.02.08 2016고단3622

-서울서부지방법원 2018.06.29 2018고단1438

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.06.08 2016고단624

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.11.23 2018고단1662