logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2013.05.07 2013고단406
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등재물손괴등)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 21, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 21:30, at the front parking lot of C Apartment 101 1-2 Ra, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant: (b) on the ground that the victim D was married to himself; (c) on the ground that the victim D was parked there; and (d) on the ground that the victim D was parked there, the part adjacent to the victim D’s seat, which was owned by the victim, divided the Defendant into the front floor of the EAbeo car and the front side of the driver’s seat into the “Hra”, which was used by the Defendant to cut off the flick-type car with the repair cost of KRW 200,000; and (d) on the other hand, the Defendant continued to damage the flick-type car and continued to exchange the back part of the EAbeo car with the victim’s repair cost of the 70,000 won car, such as the back flick-type.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. G statements;

1. Written estimate or written request for repair expenses;

1. Application of each photograph, CD-related statute;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (Punishment on the crime of causing property damage to a victim D with heavier punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion regarding Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation Act, and the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant recognized the intent of causing property damage and damage to the part damaged by the victim D’s car using the Hague. However, the Defendant’s damage of the victim D’s car and the victim’s leisure car by the Defendant’s vehicle was committed by negligence in the course of business.

arrow