logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.11.20 2013고정406
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
Text

The defendant is innocent.

Reasons

1. Around August 13, 2012, around 19:40 on August 13, 2012, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the home of the Defendant in Pariju City, Da together with D, takes a bath with D, with the victim E (the age of 46), the victim F (the age of 41), and D, while having a dispute, said D, took a provoking for the victim E; (b) the victim F’s head debt; and (c) the Defendant took a face of the victim E.

As a result, the defendant, in collaboration with D, caused the victim E to suffer a scarcity in a scarcity that requires treatment for about 14 days, and inflicted injury on the victim F, such as salt, tension, etc. in a scarcity that requires treatment for about 14 days.

2. Determination

A. In the second protocol of the trial, there are witness E’s statement and police interrogation protocol of E and police interrogation protocol of E in the fourth protocol of the trial, the police and prosecutor’s interrogation protocol of witness F in the fourth protocol of the trial, and the police protocol of the suspect interrogation protocol of F in the fourth protocol of the trial.

However, the victim made a statement at the investigative agency to the effect that he was faced with the face from the defendant, and at the prosecutor's investigation, the victim made a statement to the effect that he was not in fighting because he was the person who speaks in the middle of himself and the defendant, and in this court, he was flicked in a manner that he was tanging with the defendant in the state where H was flicking himself, and that he was flick, not in his face, but in a degree that the defendant's body was flick. However, there is no consistency in the statement by the prosecutor, such as

(A) The victim asserts that he/she made a false statement at the time of investigation by the prosecution on the basis of the agreement, but the reason for reversal cannot be easily understood. Furthermore, the defendant clearly stated that he/she was friendly from D even during his/her investigation. In addition, the victim made a clear statement that he/she was friendly from D.

arrow