logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 거창지원 2012.09.05 2012고단348
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On October 16, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the year and June of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapon, etc.) in the Changwon District Court’s branch branch on October 16, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 24, 201, and is still under a suspended sentence.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 21:30 on May 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol, had the ability to distinguish things or make decisions; (b) had the ability to distinguish things from others; (c) had the victim D (V) who was in Gyeongnam-gun C; and (d) had the victim D’s “E” restaurant operated by the victim D (V) who was in Gyeongnam-gun C, without any particular reason, caused damage to the victim’s hair, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Diagnosis certificates, each investigation report, and photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records;

1. Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders;

1. The defendant's defense counsel asserts that the defendant's defense counsel's assertion of the defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is not dangerous articles at the time when the defendant used.

Whether a certain thing constitutes “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could feel a danger to life or body when using the thing in light of social norms.

In light of the above evidence, the fact that plastic lives used at the time by the defendant are sufficiently large to enable the face of an ordinary person at 22 cm, and are made of minor shocking material.

arrow