logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.12.21 2012고단4927
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for four months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A on April 13, 2012, at the Incheon District Court sentenced 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and is still under suspension of execution.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

A. On October 22, 2012, the Defendants were in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) and drinking alcohol at the “F” restaurant operated by E in Ma in Ma in Ma in Ma in Ma in Ma in Ma in Ma in a large period of time on October 22, 2012, and Defendant A got the victim G (50 years of age) who was drinking alcohol at the next table of “ma” among several occasions of drinking alcohol to E in the same manner.

Defendant

B는 피해자에게 “씹 새끼야, 뭘 쳐다보냐, 눈깔을 파버리겠다”라고 욕설을 하고, 피고인 A은 이에 합세하여 오른 무릎으로 피해자의 배 부위를 1회, 왼 주먹으로 피해자의 얼굴 부위를 1회씩 때리고, 피고인 B는 피해자에게 다가가 손으로 피해자의 몸을 수 회 밀쳤다.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly committed violence to the victim.

B. On October 22, 2012, from around 16:20 to 16:50 on the same day, the Defendants who interfered with the business, while drinking alcohol in the above “F” restaurant operated by the victim E, Defendant A called “mother” to the victim, and Defendant A was rejected by the victim, “I am by telephone to the probation office by telephone to 114, and turn H.” However, the Defendants were “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, and I am, I am, and I am “I am, I am, I am, I am, and I am,” and the Defendant continued to do so on the part of the victim’s husband, on the ground that the husband’s husband did not directly take the toilet from the victim’s husband even after being notified of the location of the toilet, and on the ground that the husband’s husband did not come to the toilet.” The Defendants continued to do so on the toilet and the victim’s husband.

. Does themselves as described in the subsection.

arrow