logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.04.17 2014고정1023
모욕
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2014. 4. 21. 17:20경 전주시 완산구 팔달로 103에 있는 전동 공용터미널에서, 피해자 D(82세)이 피고인의 명예훼손 피고소 사건 참고인으로 진술한 것에 앙심을 품고, 목격자 G 등 10여명이 들을 수 있는 가운데, 피해자에게 “D아! 이 씹할 놈아 좆같은 놈아, 뭐야, 씹할 놈아 사기꾼 놈아, 야 이 씹할 놈아 E이하고 짝짜꿍 된 놈아”라고 큰소리로 말하는 등 공연히 피해자를 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

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

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing witness D and F's respective statutory statements;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 311 of the Selection of Punishment;

2. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse.

3. The defendant asserts that the judgment on the issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order only stated that the victim's fraud was replaced, and that the victim did not have any abusive behavior such as the statement of facts constituting the crime in the judgment.

Therefore, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by this court by comprehensively taking account of each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., ① the victim made a statement that the victim took the victim's bath as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court since the investigation agency to this court, etc., is consistent and concrete, and the content of the statement is consistent and specific, ② the victim's statement is consistent with the victim's statement and the trade name; ③ the victim's statement is also consistent with the victim's statement and the victim's statement; ③ the defendant did not take the victim's bath to the victim similar to his statement; on the contrary, the defendant argued that he did not take the victim's bath. However, the defendant did not give any interest to the victim even in the process of stating the fact of damage to the police officer in charge at the former North Korean Police Station on the day of

arrow