logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.18 2019고단1718
폭행
Text

Defendant

The sentence for B shall be suspended.

Defendant

A The prosecution against A is dismissed.

Reasons

On January 20, 2019, Defendant B and the victim A did not turn on the paths at the first floor D clubs of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu, Seoul, the first floor D around January 20, 2019.

The Defendant, at the same time and place, suffered bodily injury, such as damage of the face requiring treatment for about 14 days, because the victim was able to take the head of the victim, scam the head of the victim, scam the body of the victim, scam the body of the victim, scam the body of the victim, and scam the face with his hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The criminal place;

1. A investigative report (STV image verification);

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

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

1. Penalty fine of KRW 1,000,000 to be suspended;

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

1. The part concerning the rejection of prosecution under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 59 (1) of the suspended sentence (Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 59 (1) (Article 59 (1) (Article 59 (1)) (Article 59 (1)) (Article 59 (1) of the same Act (Article

1. On January 20, 2019, around 05:10 on January 20, 2019, the Defendant became the victim B and Si expenses on the ground that the Defendant did not turn on the paths from the first floor D clubs of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C.

The Defendant assaulted the victim on the same date and at the same place, such as booming and smugglinging the victim’s head.

2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

According to the written agreement bound in the public trial records, the victim may recognize the fact that he/she expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the defendant on February 19, 2019, which was after the institution of the public trial of this case.

Accordingly, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow