logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2015.10.06 2014고단1982 (1)
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동폭행)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 22:00 on September 5, 2014, the Defendant and C conspiredd that the victim D(the age of 47) will take a bath to her talk in a brea basin in Sinsan-ro 98, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si on September 22, 2014, and thereby, C took a breath of the victim’s breath, and the Defendant pushed the victim with her face part of the victim’s right face by drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim jointly with C.

2. On September 13, 2014, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) with E, and around 04:05 on September 13, 2014, the Defendant turned the victim F (the age 45) and drinking in the square, without any specific reason, while drinking the victim F (the age 45) and drinking. The Defendant turn the victim’s hand floor on 5-6 occasions, and the Defendant was able to turn the victim’s hand floor on 3-4 occasions with the victim’s hand floor.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim jointly with E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of C, G, and E;

1. Each police statement of H and D;

1. Each statement of D, H, I, and F;

1. Application of related photographs and on-site photographs statutes;

1. Relevant Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines

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

1. Article 57 of the Criminal Act including days of detention;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though the defendant had been sentenced to three months of imprisonment for special larceny in 2013, and committed the instant crime again during the repeated crime period. However, it appears that the defendant recognized the instant crime and committed the instant crime by mistake, the defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency, and the victims do not want the punishment by agreement with the victims.

arrow