beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.18 2014노2100

폭행

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the fact that it may be somewhat difficult for the victim E to specifically memory the situation of an elderly relationship and to make a statement by arranging one-day facts, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement solely on the ground that part of the victim's statement is not exaggerated and consistent. In light of the victim's statement, etc., the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On May 14, 2013, at around 20:50 on May 14, 2013, the Defendant assaulted the victim E and water tank repair cost statement in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (D apartment) on the issue of disclosure of the victim E and water tank repair cost statement.

B. The victim E’s investigative agency and legal statement are admissible as evidence corresponding to the facts charged.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record are as follows: (i) the victim was accused of violence against the defendant and was subject to investigation; (ii) the victim argued that he was subjected to assault from the defendant at that time; and (iii) the victim was at the price of the body, but the examination of the defendant was judged to have been in a state where there was no possibility of bomb (the result of the examination of the victim was impossible) when the victim responded that he was not at the price of the body, as a result of the psychological physiological examination on the part of the price of the body (the result of examination on the victim was not determined); (iii) the victim was in a state where he was breath (the victim was spathing and was spathd with the victim’s breath (the victim was intending to receive the head, and was spathd with his face with the hand floor); and (iv) the victim stated to the effect that there was no assault that could inflict an injury to the same degree as the defendant claimed, but that he was issued with the summary order.