logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.15 2018고단4981
특수협박
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On November 2, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment by the Suwon District Court for the crime of damaging public goods, etc., and completed the execution of the said sentence on July 14, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to stimulative disorder.

On August 20, 2018, around 00:24, the Defendant, within the convenience store located in Suwon-si B, was acting as if he would inflict an injury on the victim D (the age of 18) (the blade length: 11.5cm, the total length: 22cm) in a dangerous object possessed by the victim D (the age of 18) who is an employee.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Copies of CCTV inside the site;

1. Previous convictions: Two copies of criminal records, results of the search of prisoners, and the decision [the defendant asserts that the victim taken CCTV images does not coincide with the victim who memorys the defendant, and that there was no intention to threaten the victim, but according to each of the above evidences, the above argument can be sufficiently recognized, and therefore, the above argument is without merit] shall be applied to the law.

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Article 10(2) and Article 55(1)3 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 15982, Dec. 18, 2018);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act asserted that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the stimulative disorder at the time of the crime in this case.

In full view of the following circumstances known by the record, the defendant is present.

arrow