상해
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged was around 06:10 on August 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) 932 distance in front of the straight-line market in the Sims market in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul; (b) on the ground that there was a dispute with the victim C (63) who was participating in the assembly in the process of giving rise to the transfer of the applicant company in connection with the Sims market redevelopment project, on the ground that the appraisal between the merchants became serious; and (c) on the other hand, the Defendant was able to take down the victim’s neck in both hands and stroke.
As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, such as dynasium, tension, etc. on the bones of trees requiring medical treatment for about three weeks.
2. As evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, there is a statement and an injury diagnosis report in the investigation agency of C, D, and E.
However, C, D, and E appeared as a witness in this Court, and C was said to be the defendant by a person who renders his title from D.
A statement is made only to the effect that anyone was unaware of his name because he was close from the following, and that his name was not known, and that the place where the assault was committed was committed is not the way to go ahead of his name in the direct market, and D merely speaks that another person was the defendant's stroke, and that he did not witness it.
E is also stated that the defendant was unable to witness the neck of C.
Since the statement is made, it is impossible to believe that the statement made at the investigation agency of C, D, and E is the same, and the remaining evidence, such as the written injury diagnosis, submitted by the prosecutor, has inflicted a bodily injury on C as in the facts charged.
The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, a judgment of innocence shall be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but since the defendant does not consent to a public notice of acquittal, public notice of acquittal judgment pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act shall not be ordered.