beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who operates a D pharmacy in a commercial complex in Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City.
On November 24, 2017, the Defendant, around 13:15 on November 24, 2017, assaulted the victim of spitation by spiting the victim F (ma, South 59 years of age) who operates E office in the above commercial building and parking problems.
Summary of Evidence
1. Legal statement of witness F;
1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;
1. On-site CCTV storage CDs (the defendant claims that the victim was spits or spits off).
However, in full view of the following circumstances, the facts charged can be found guilty.
(1) The victim claims that the defendant spits or spits the victim in a consistent manner from investigative agencies to this court.
The above statements are reliable in light of consistent, specific, and the attitude of the statement in this court.
(2) The CCTV images are recorded on the surface that the defendant seems to have unfolded so far in the future by toward the victim at the time.
In light of the above statements of the victim, spitation seems to be an act that spits the victim.
③ The Defendant alleged spits or spits on the land on the above surface (58 pages of evidence records, etc.). However, in light of the direction of the face of the Defendant, the immediately following the above actions, the occurrence of physical fightings between the Defendant and the victim, etc., it is reasonable to deem that spits or spits are spits on the victim)
1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act seems to have committed the instant crime somewhat contingent since the Defendant did not move to the victim while he or she had a dispute with the victim.
Defendant was also subject to assault against the victim.
However, the defendant denies the mistake even if there is clear evidence.