logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.04.22 2014고정2405
상해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the vice-chairperson of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Management Body of the C Building, and the victim D (the age of 65) is a person who operated a cover of land in the 14th floor of the above C Building.

On April 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around April 17, 2013, at the office of the management body of the building C, inflicted injury on the victim, such as thalor, requiring medical treatment for about 15 days, by pushing the victim who had obstructed before the Defendant, who attempted to enter the port of short time due to the unpaid management expenses; and (b) attempted to leave the place.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the crime prosecuted, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). (B)

In this case, each of the statements, injuries, and 119 emergency medical services are included in D, E and each of the investigative agencies and this court, as evidence that conforms to or conform to the facts charged in this case.

However, the circumstances that can be considered by the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, the Defendant consistently asserted from the investigative agency to the present court that “the Defendant was carrying a reading center with the left hand of the Defendant seeking to escape the victim who has resisted to the management body office, and the victim was able to get off the Defendant’s arm’s length and got out of the office.” The date and time stated in the facts charged, and the sentencing order, etc., at the place where the Defendant was found in the above facts charged, had the office to avoid the victim who was able to find out in the office, and the Defendant also left the office.

arrow