logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.03.09 2016고단3024
폐기물관리법위반등
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, each of the above punishments shall be executed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants, as married couple, are people raising, cultivating, and selling a dog at “E farm” in the operation of the Defendants located in Kimpo-si.

1. Defendants in violation of the Animal Protection Act were killed in collusion, and on September 2016, in front of other dogs raised at the above farm, with a cruel method, with the string of strings by the stringing of the raised one, in front of the other dogs being raised at the farm.

[In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, Defendant A did not directly share the implementation due to Defendant B’s failure to be at the scene of the above crime.

In other words, it is sufficiently recognized that the above crime was committed with the intention of co-processing as a common principal offender and has functional control over the crime.

Defendant

A, along with Defendant B, is a person who has had the record of criminal punishment for a fine due to the crime of killing and killing a dog raised in the above farm while standing together with Defendant B.

On the top of the list 23 of the evidence taken at the time, the defendant A saw the dead body of the defendant B, without the color of completely playing, while the defendant A saw the dead body of the defendant B, and caused the photographer to die with "(in lieu of the death of the body with the electric shock) to do so."

The purpose of “” is to explain to Defendant B, and only to Defendant B “dipule”

As the appearance “” is observed, Defendant A instructed Defendant B to catch a dog (the death) with the recognition of Defendant B’s death by the method of planting a dog, such as the flat, and it appears that Defendant B did not expect that Defendant B would die (the death) but did not seem to have been on the presumption that Defendant B would die).

2...

arrow