beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2013.05.31 2013노300

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the joint injury part against the victim E) the Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the victim E (hereinafter “victim”), and despite sufficient evidence to support this, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there is no proof of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the injured party and F operate the traditional tea house in the Y of the Hasan City as the husband and wife’s place, and the Defendants are mutually adjoining persons who operate the Vice Minister of the H of the Hasan City.

At around 15:40 on January 12, 2012, the Defendants: (a) 15:40, the Defendants were assaulted from the victims, F, and Sif, who found that the instant traditional tea house parking lot was parked for a long time; and (b) on the basis of the victim’s head, Defendant B was shakened with the victim’s head, thereby cutting off the victim’s head, and tightly cutting off the victim’s head, and thereby, Defendant A inflicted injury on the victim, such as catum salt, which requires two weeks’ treatment.

B. (1) First, we examine whether Defendant B, by putting the victim’s head debt, shaking the victim’s head debt, and pushed the victim’s shoulder over the floor.

As evidence consistent with this, F, the husband of the victim and the victim, made a statement at an investigative agency, and the content was that Defendant B, by putting the victim's shoulder over the upper floor and putting the head debt up by his hand (the investigation record 29,39,82 pages). However, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the records of this case are as follows: ① The victim reversed the above statement at the court of original instance and Defendant B did not depi the above himself, and Defendant B did not have the head debt in the course of the fighting between Defendant B and F, but the head debt is known.