logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.06.19 2015고단1067
폭행
Text

Defendant

The sentence for B shall be suspended.

Defendant

A The prosecution against A is dismissed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B around 13:10 on April 8, 2015, around 13:10, at the fifth floor office of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building, the victim A (n and 66 years of age) faceed with a document board, and the victim was tightly pushed up once, and the victim was faced with a side part of the victim's side, and the victim was injured by approximately two weeks on the left side part of the victim's side.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of a police officer;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. A fine of 700,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (in cases of the inducement in a workhouse, 100,000 won a day);

1. The part dismissing prosecution pursuant to Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence of sentence (see, e., Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., that Defendant B paid KRW 5 million to the victim and that the victim does not want to be punished by the above Defendant; that the victim, on the face of the above Defendant, brought about the crime of this case in a timely manner

1. Around April 13:10 on April 8, 2015, Defendant A assaulted the victim’s face one time by a document board on the face of the victim B (year 46) at the fifth floor office of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building on the ground that the victim B (year 46) neglected his/her speech.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are the crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

However, on June 9, 2015, the victim may recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish Defendant A after the indictment of this case.

Therefore, the prosecution against Defendant A is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow