beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2017.08.18 2017고정167

상해

Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 16, 2016, at around 10:40, the Defendant observed that the victim E (59 years old) was at the time of the denial of the victim’s son F in the course of drinking from the injured party in the course of drinking and drinking up the victim’s body in hand, taken the victim’s body out of the towing distribution, taken the victim’s face out of the towing distribution, taken the victim’s face one time at the place of drinking, and sustained the victim’s fright and the injury of the tension that requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

However, the victim stated consistently in the police investigation that he/she was assaulted once on the part of drinking alcohol, and that he/she was assaulted around the snow.

In light of the fact that the victim’s image taken at the time of the instant case had no statement and that the victim’s image was not verified at all around the victim’s eye, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the victim suffered the victim’s 'brut pool and surrounding eye’ due to the Defendant’s assault.

It is difficult to see it.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court are as follows: (i) the Defendant was at the time of the instant case, i.e., at the time of drinking the victim’s face; and (ii) the victim was at the time of the instant case’s diagnosis of injury issued by G G in the instant G in advance, and (iii) the victim was at the time of being at the time of being at the time of being at the time of being at the time of being at the time of the instant accident

In light of the fact that the part of the “satise base and tension” was consistent with the part of the Defendant’s assault, the victim seems to have suffered at least the injury of the “satise base and tension” due to the Defendant’s assault.

Therefore, this case is consistent with the facts acknowledged by this court to the extent that the identity of the facts charged is recognized and the exercise of the defendant's right to defense is not a substantial disadvantage.