logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.05.01 2014고정205
상해등
Text

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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 10, 2013, the Defendant 14:10 on December 14:10, 2013, at the Esplate which was set down on the 346 home fluor underground floor and the 2nd floor of the Cheongju City, “Flon on the ground that the injured party C and D come up on the thalth hand,” ever called “Flon on the ground that the injured party C and D come up on the string hand, the Defendant saw the back on the string-ro bank of the victim 2 times the left arms of the victim C, which requires approximately 10-day medical treatment for the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. The application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the photograph of the defendant (No. 6 No. 1 of the evidence list), CCTV recording data to the extent that the defendant wears his/her shoulder photo (Evidence No. 1 of the evidence list), and the photograph of the part of the

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s left bridge bucks after the victim’s left buckbucks and bucks, which were cited by the Defendant in the time and place of the facts charged in the instant case.

2. We examine the judgment. This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. D withdraws his/her wish to prosecute the defendant by attending the court on April 29, 2014, which was the date of the prosecution of this case, and thus, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow