The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

At around April 21, 2013, at around 06:00, the Defendant found the Victim F (38 years of age) who returned from a taxi while she was able to take a monthly salary from the president of the 'E' station in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, for a period of four months, and was unable to receive the monthly salary from the president of the 'E' station in front of the 'E' station in which she works as the main station, and she did not pay a monthly salary from the president and the president when she drinks alcohol. "I am in the manner of mind." The Defendant saw the horses as follows, while she was seeed the horses, and she was able to take off the camping boat, which is a dangerous object from the between the two trokes of her car cars, and she was able to leave it with the victim, etc. twice

In this respect, the defendant carried a camping boat, which is a dangerous thing, and carried the victim's scambling with the treatment days.

2. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was punished by the president of the Soviet and the head of the Soviet, and the other employees who told himself, were employed by the Defendant, was in line with the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her but her her her her her her her her her her b

B. The victim cannot be deemed to have suffered from the scambacrife due to the instant case, and the camping boat used in the instant case does not constitute a dangerous object.

3. Determination

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the intent to inflict an injury on the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① The Defendant, as a matter of delayed payment of wages, was in a dispute with G, the president outside of the building in the middle of the said small bank, and went to the said small bank in the middle of his car, while leaving the middle bank, but while G was in the process of preventing the Defendant, the franc had been punished in the process of preventing the Defendant, and the victim was only next to it at the time.

The victim did not know whether or not the defendant intentionally prices himself or the defendant spreads another person's body because he did not directly see the appearance of the defendant's price.

③ The victim stated that he was at a price twice consecutively from the Defendant. However, the witness stated to the effect that “H, who was a witness, was her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her part

④ The Defendant’s act of taking part in the field is solely deemed to inflict an injury on G, but does not seem to have an intention to inflict an injury on other persons than G. In fact, the Defendant did not exercise any particular violence against the I et al. who, at the time of the dispute with G.

⑤ The witness stated to the effect that “H, who was a witness, she saw the camping boat to the victim immediately before the camping boat was displayed, and the victim saw the camping boat to the left side of the Defendant when she passes through the right side of the Defendant.” Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was aware that the victim was only her at the time when the camping boat was displayed.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case against the defendant constitutes a time when there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is published under Article 58 (2

Judges Park So-young

Judges, Senior Superintendent-General