logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2021.02.17 2020고정153
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

B around December 25, 2019, around 01:20, D was working in front of the C building in the East Sea, and the victim E (19 years) asked “hick” as “hick.” On the ground that the victim E (19 years) was aware of the situation, B sent F and the Defendant by telephone, without saying “I am informed of the name of the width, and I am I am.”

The Defendant and B and F met with the victim at the above date, time and place, and the F walked the victim’s face once by walking the victim’s ship once by hand, the victim’s face by hand, and the victim’s face twice by drinking, and the Defendant knicked the victim’s bomb with her hand, and pushed the victim’s buck with her hand.

As a result, the Defendants jointly committed the injury to the victim during the 28-day medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court, witness E and G: Each legal statement in court;

1. Some statements made in the police interrogation protocol concerning B or F;

1. Each police statement made to E, H and G;

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

1. Relevant Article 2 (2) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. for Criminal Facts, and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the punishment penalty is set in consideration of the fact that the degree of participation by the defendant is relatively minor, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that F and B only sealed the victim’s chest in order to clarify that the victim was at fault, and that F and B did not have been at fault, and that the victim, H and G made a statement corresponding to the Defendant’s above assertion in this Court.

However, the victim and G have been at the investigative agency of the victim F and B, so that the victim was at the face of the defendant.

He clearly stated, and H also made an investigative agency.

arrow