logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 상주지원 2015.01.20 2014고단509
상해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case: (a) around 21:00 on June 27, 2014, the Defendant: (b) within the D Women’s Desertion Office, Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”); (c) sought to hear the victim’s desire from the victim E (the victim (the victim, who is aged 54) who is a work partner with no good space; (d) displayed the victim’s desire to take the victim’s her hand by her hand; (e) her the victim’s booms the victim’s growth toward the Defendant; and (e) laid the victim’s booms over the floor; and (e) opened the victim’s body with the victim’s her upper part listed above the victim’s body, the Defendant sawd the victim with approximately nine weeks’ body back and her mouths at the bottom of the necessary frame.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant’s assertion E merely sustained an injury while exceeding the Defendant’s her sloping with the Defendant’s her candle, and the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the Defendant by cutting the victim over the floor.

B. The fact that the victim suffered injury, such as the facts charged, at the time of the instant case is recognized.

Furthermore, this paper examines whether the defendant inflicts bodily injury on the victim by damaging the victim's floor.

The main evidence that seems consistent with this is the E investigative agency and this court's statement.

E stated in an investigative agency or in this court that, in order to prevent the Defendant from assaulting nearest and assaulting, the Defendant was at the time of entering and cutting off the E’s launchings, and the Defendant was on the front of the E.

see, e.g., the prosecutor’s statements of Articles 86, 87 of the investigation records. However, E’s statements are not consistent as follows:

In other words, in the first statement of the police, E is consistent with the statement as to whether the Defendant exceeded one of the seeing items, such as the 49 pages of the investigation records, on the ground that the Defendant turned out the left side of E in the second statement of the police, while referring to 24 pages of the investigation records.

arrow