logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.03.16 2016고단6115
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and for six months, respectively.

However, between two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. 피고인들의 공동 범행 피고인들은 2016. 10. 14. 00:42 경 경산시 D에 있는 E 앞 도로에서, 피해자 F(39 세), 피해자 G(61 세) 이 길 건너편에서 “ 어이 택시 ”라고 외친 것을 자신들에게 말한 것으로 오해를 하여 시비가 되자, 피고인 A은 위 G의 멱살을 잡고 벽으로 밀치고, 피고인 B은 휴대폰으로 동영상을 촬영하려고 하는 위 G을 밀어 바닥에 넘어뜨리며, 피고인 A은 이에 가세하여 바닥에 넘어졌다가 일어난 위 G의 엉덩이를 발로 2회 찼다.

Defendant A continued to engage in the above F due to drinking and salivation, and Defendant B got off the above F in light of the victim F due to his hand and salivation.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly assaulted victims.

2. Defendant A, like the above paragraph 1, assaulted F and G on the road run by the victim H, Defendant A, who was the victim of the instant case, was at the front of the road run by the victim H, and damaged the property by taking the front glass of the E store, the victim’s possession, as its head, to the extent that the market price is at least 150,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness G and F;

1. A H statement;

1. CtV closure screen, ctv video CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (on-site CCTV attachment);

1. The Defendants: Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint assault and the choice of imprisonment), Defendant A: Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to property, the choice of imprisonment, etc.)

1. Defendants who aggravated concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that Defendant A had been punished seven times for violent crimes, and Defendant B repeated the instant crime of assaulting victims and destroying property, despite the fact that the victims had been punished three times for violent crimes, and it is not good that such crimes are committed in light of the applicable law.

arrow