Defendant

Captain도요

Attorney Jeon Soo-soo

1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 4,000,000 won;

2. If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 40,000 won into one day.

3. Number of detention days before the sentence of this judgment is made shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse;

4. The charge of false reporting among the facts charged in the instant case is acquitted.

From September 15, 2004 to July 11, 2004, the defendant was a person in charge of management of the status of the artist belonging to the public relations organization at ordinary times, and when exercising the event, the defendant was a person in charge of leading the artist.

1. At around 00:10 on June 19, 2005, when the victim Non-Indicted 1 (22 years old), Non-Indicted 2 (22 years old), the victim’s disease Non-Indicted 3, Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 6, and Non-Indicted 6 of the company in drinking alcohol at the time of two occasions, the victim’s inner part of the victim’s inner part of drinking water due to the left part of drinking water, and Non-Indicted 2 of the treatment days, the victim Non-Indicted 2 of the Daegu dental wave, and the victim Non-Indicted 1 of the company in need of approximately three weeks’ medical treatment.

2. At around 01:00 on the same day, at the Han-si Han-si, the victim Non-Indicted 4 (22 years old), Non-Indicted 3 (24 years old), Byung-gu, Non-Indicted 2, and Non-Indicted 1, 8 members of the event team, such as the victim's disease, the victim's disease, Non-Indicted 3 (24 years old), Byung-gu, and Byung-gu, are gathered to knee in the five-story corridor, and the victim's gele is charged with the victim's gelf, which requires approximately two-day medical treatment, and the victim's gelf in the part of the victim's head and head, respectively.

Facts in the Judgment

1. Statement corresponding thereto in this court by the defendant;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of defendants prepared by the military prosecutor, which corresponds thereto;

1. Each statement made by the military prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 4, which correspond to the written statement prepared by the military prosecutor

1. Statement corresponding to the statement of Nonindicted 2 prepared by the military judicial police officer;

1. Each description of Non-Indicted 2’s non-Indicted 7’s written diagnosis (No. 95’s criminal investigation records No. 2005), Non-Indicted 1’s written investigation records No. 8’s written investigation records (No. 53’s criminal investigation records No. 95 of 2005), Non-Indicted 4’s written investigation records (No. 63’s criminal investigation records No. 95 of 2005) of Non-Indicted 9’s written diagnosis (No. 63’s criminal investigation records of 205)

As a whole, there is evidence to recognize it.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, selection of fines

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment of Violences, etc. (at night, joint injury) against Non-Indicted 1 who is the largest offense]

3. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

The Defendant and the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that the Defendant was in an insane or a state of mental or physical disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Accordingly, according to the Defendant’s statement in this court, the Defendant’s statement in the protocol of interrogation of the Defendant in this court, the Defendant’s statement in Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 4 in each protocol of statement in the military prosecutor’s preparation, etc., the Defendant was found to have drinking at the time of the crime of this case, but it is recognized that the Defendant had drinking at the time of the crime of this case. Meanwhile, in light of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s drinking volume at the time of the crime of this case, the circumstances, means, and the Defendant’s behavior after the crime of this case, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was unable

이 사건 공소사실 중 허위보고의 점의 요지는 피고인이 2005. 6. 19. 01:00경 보령시 소재 한화콘도 5층 복도에서 피고인이 상병 공소외 4의 안면부를 가죽벨트로 구타하여 코뼈를 부러뜨려 수술이 필요하게 되어 병력손실이 발생하게 되었는바, 같은 달 21. 09:00경 피해자의 신상관리자로서 그 원인을 해군본부 정훈공보실 문화홍보과장인 중령 공소외 10에게 보고하는 과정에서, 먼저 해군본부 정훈공보실 복도에서 상병 공소외 4에게 ‘한 번만 봐줘라, 보면대에 부딪혀서 코가 다친 걸로 해줘’라고 부탁한 다음, 문화홍보과장실에 상병 공소외 4를 데리고 들어가 문화홍보과장 중령 공소외 10에게 사고 원인에 대해 보고를 하면서 피고인은 상병 공소외 4가 보면대에 부딪혀서 코를 다친 것으로 그 원인을 보고하고, 중령 공소외 10이 상병 공소외 4에게 피고인의 보고내용이 사실인지 여부를 확인하자 상병 공소외 4로 하여금 피고인 부탁한 바와 같이 보면대에 부딪혀 코뼈가 부러진 것이 맞다고 진술하게 함으로써 병력손실의 원인에 관하여 허위보고를 하였다라고 함에 있다.

In light of the fact that the crime of false report under Article 38 of the Military Criminal Act is established when a false report is made with respect to military affairs, and that the punishment of death penalty, imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than five years, imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years, or imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year, or with prison labor for other cases, and that the statutory punishment is relatively high, and even if the general public official in special power relationship does not punish for such type of crime in relation to the duties in charge, the above provision shall be set forth in the Military Criminal Act that applies only to soldiers, and it shall be strictly and narrowly applied. Thus, the meaning of “military affairs” under Article 38 of the Military Criminal Act refers to a crime that is established when the military head of the military forces reports falsely to the non-indicted 4's superior, who is the non-indicted 5's main office of the military army, and it is reasonable to interpret that the defendant's report to the non-indicted 4's main office of the military on the day of their return to the military team without any specific reason.

However, in this case, it is difficult to recognize any element except that the defendant and the victim are the status of a soldier (the fact alone is difficult to recognize as a military affair) as a military matter with regard to the facts charged against the defendant. Thus, this is merely merely a false report on the matters concerning personnel accidents, and it cannot be said that the defendant made a false report on the military affairs under Article 38 of the Military Criminal Act.

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a crime not guilty under the former part of Article 380 of the Military Court Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Major Military Judge Colonel Kim Young-young (Presiding Justice) An administrative patent judge so-called a subordinate to military judge (Presiding Justice)