logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.05.06 2012고정5232
상해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, in the state of mental disability of class 2, has a weak ability to discern things or make decisions, and around 01:00 on July 2, 2012, the defendant drinks alcohol with the victim within 105-dong 1302, Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, the residence of the victim C (the age of 41).

The Defendant committed an injury in the number of days of treatment, such as promising to help the victim, who was in a so-called sofacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacaca, to help him go in a mental hospital, and failing to observe it, taking the face of the victim locked by head several times, and making

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of damaged photographs and damaged photographs2 Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders;

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant was in the state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime, since the Defendant was hospitalized at the time of mental fission from around August 2, 2004 due to mental disorder Grade 2 of the mental disorder, and thus, it was acknowledged that the Defendant was in the state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime. However, according to the records, it seems that the Defendant was in the state of mental disorder as seen earlier, and therefore, it is deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, the above assertion is rejected

arrow