logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.02.13 2014고단1546
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On September 6, 2014, around 20:50 on September 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around the D restaurant in Jeju Island, the victim E (the victim E (the victim of 46 years of age) who is an elementary school, disregards the victim’s personnel without personnel; (b) taken the victim’s her hand at one time; (c) continuously taken the victim into the next parking lot of the said restaurant; and (d) taken the victim’s face via drinking, the Defendant her frighted the victim by taking a stone, which is a dangerous thing at the same time, and threatened the victim.

2. “Intimidation”, which is required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation, generally refers to informing a person who has become the other party of harm sufficient to cause fear. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and degree of friendship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do10451 Decided August 17, 2012, etc.). The Defendant asserted in this court that he saw that he she saw her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she she was

In this Court, the injured party only sees the defendant's stone, did not see that he was faced with his body because he saw his body. The same is the same. The injured party made a statement to the effect that he was faced with the defendant in an investigative agency but did not fit for the damage is wrong. The accused and the injured party are found to have a fact that the injured party was a 1-year ex post facto between the elementary school and the victim.

If so, it is difficult to believe that the defendant was able to look at the victim's investigative agency, and the defendant laid down a stone.

arrow