logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.01.18 2017고정322
폭행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 10, 2016, at around 02:45, the Defendant assaulted victims, such as the victim E (20) and the victim F (20) on the street in front of the first floor D shop of the C building in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant was drinking in the process of wrapping with the victim E (20) and the victim F (20).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, G, H, and I;

1. References to inquiries, such as criminal history, and application of statutes;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel did not assault the victims as stated in the facts charged of this case, such as the defendant's timing for victims as stated in the judgment of the court below concerning the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant assaulted the victims.

Even if the victims were to lose their happiness, they used force during the process of assaulting as a vision, so they constitute a legitimate act or a legitimate defense.

The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., the victim E (nameJ prior to the opening of the name), from the investigative agency to the present court, stated from the victim E to the investigation agency to the effect that “the time was due to the failure of the inside of the country to d main office, etc.,” and the Defendant called “the front of the video” to the effect that “the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of

arrow