Violation of the Act (Bodily Injury by Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.)

Defendant,

1. Around 02:40 on August 28, 2008, at the point of " XX" located in the Busan Youngdo-gu, Busan, opened a dump-base entrance and opened a door inside the inner door, and intrudes into the room where the victim V2 and the victim V, who is his/her dependent, are in the victim V2;

2. When the time and place mentioned in the preceding paragraph were discovered to the victim V2(the age of 43), the victim ice ice, which was a dangerous object, was boomed to the victim’s head, and the victim saw the victim’s head to put the victim’s head into a sculic sculing method that requires treatment days.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1)3 of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (influences into residence, choice of imprisonment), Article 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravated Punishment for Concurrent Crimes within the extent that the punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is added to the punishment provided for in the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Inflicting by Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the degree of injury of a victim is not too much weighted, and all favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that an agreement has been reached, shall be considered)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Jurors's verdict

A. The injury resulting from robbery, which is the primary charge

A verdict of innocence by the jury's unanimous verdict

B. Violation of the Act on the Residence Intrusion and Punishment of Violences, Etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) which is the ancillary charge

Written verdict of guilt by jury unanimous verdict

Judgment on the Defense Counsel's argument

The defense counsel asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and according to the above evidence and the witness B's testimony, the defense counsel's assertion is rejected on the ground that it is recognized that the defendant had some alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but it does not seem to have reached a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

The acquittal portion

The gist of the facts charged in the facts charged in the instant case is that " around 02:40 on August 28, 2008, around 02:0, the head of the victim was ice ice in the surrounding area for the purpose of evading the arrest of the defendant's bridge and then the victim was sprinked twice the number of days of treatment to the victim."

Although the Defendant recognized that the victim inflicted an injury identical to the above facts charged in this court, the Defendant denied the victim’s intent to commit a theft, not by entering the victim’s house with a false knowledge of the victim’s intent to steal property under the influence of alcohol.

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial shall be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to believe that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined as the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002; 91Do1385, Aug. 13, 1991). The evidence submitted by the public prosecutor for proving the above facts charged is 52; V2; V2; and V2; V2; V2; V. The contents of the statement made by the public prosecutor to the effect that the defendant had nothing to admit the facts that the defendant had an interview with the victim with his/her head, and it appears that there was no other evidence that the defendant had an interview with the victim's head by the public prosecutor.

Thus, the facts charged above should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of both the crime of intrusion upon residence and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons,

Judges Nationwide

Judges Shin Jae-sung