logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.03.19 2014고단4095
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 31, 2014, around 18:10 on October 31, 2014, the Defendant met the victim E (year 55) in D fishing places located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, but the victim did not comply with it, and the victim did not comply with it, and the victim's right head at one time due to Aluminium (Garo 8cm, 55cm in length), which is a dangerous object, put the victim on the part of the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel as to each photograph (deficial part / criminal implements)

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that at the time of the crime of this case, the assault was committed only, and that there was no intention of injury.

2. In the establishment of the crime of bodily injury, if there exists sufficient awareness of assault, which is the cause of the bodily injury, and it is not necessary until the existence of the doctor to engage in

(대법원 2000. 7. 4. 선고 99도4341 판결, 1983. 3. 22. 선고 83도231 판결 등 참조). 3. 위에서 든 증거들에 의하면, 피고인이 위험한 물건인 알루미늄 막대로 피해자의 머리를 때려 피가 나게 하였고 이로 인하여 피해자는 17바늘을 꿰매는 봉합수술을 받은 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위와 같은 피고인의 행위는 피해자에 대한 상해의 고의를 충분히 인정할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라, 설령 그렇지 않다고 하더라도 위 인정사실을 위 2.의 법리에 비추어 보면, 적어도 피고인의 행위는 피해자의 의사에 반한 유형력의 행사로써 폭행에 대한 인식은 있었다고 보이므로, 피고인 및 변호인의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( normal consideration in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing below);

1. Article 62 of the Criminal Act:

arrow