Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.
Punishment of the crime
1. Around 22:40 on March 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) boarded the victim C (the 52-year-old) was driven by the victim C (the 52-year-old) of the Busan Jin-gu B apartment; (b) took the victim’s taxi in front of the F in the same Gu E, as a guest, and was 106 units of the above apartment; (c) however, the Defendant did not find 106 units of the above apartment due to the victim’s night-time fault; (d) did not find 106 units of the above apartment; and (e) did not look at the victim’s face while driving the apartment in front of the 104-dong-gu, Busan; and (e) assaulted the victim’s face one time as drinking.
2. When the Defendant continued to stop the taxi without paying the fare, and the victim intending to get off the taxi due to the defective drinking, and 10 times the face of the victim 10 times due to the defective drinking, the Defendant saw the victim as a luminous frame requiring treatment for about 28 days.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement to C by the police;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (including circumstances leading up to a suspect and cash possession), investigation reporting (Attachment to a written diagnosis of injury of a victim);
1. Article 5-10 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 5-10 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for each crime;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant alleged to the effect that he was in a mental and physical state under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, and thus, the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of each crime, but did not have the ability to discern things or make a decision.
Since it cannot be seen as having reached a state of or weakness, the above assertion is rejected.