logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.09.11 2013고단224
상해
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. On May 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 20:39, on the ground that the victim C (the age of 43) who was a customer among the mobile restaurant that had been drinking a truck on the street of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, set up a 543-92 jum on a set of 1, 543-92 jumbial and sold a boom, she brought about an injury to the victim, such as a broom, which requires approximately six weeks of treatment to the victim, by taking off the victim’s face into consideration; and (b) taking the victim’s face into consideration.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel did not assault the victim at the time and place specified in the above facts charged, and they drinking alcohol at a place different from the defendant's friendship on the date of the above facts charged.

3. However, there are statements in C, D and E investigative agencies and this court as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case.

However, C does not accurately regard the face of the perpetrator on the same day, but merely corresponds to the defendant's voice ton, door, and rear scam. In case of E, investigative agencies reverse the statement that the perpetrator is a customer who is only once more than twice a month for the restaurant of this case, and the perpetrator has been only about two months at the time of the occurrence of this case, and the perpetrator stated to the effect that he is a single scam for the restaurant of this case. In this court, the perpetrator stated to the effect that he is a perpetrator, and the face of the customer is accurately memoryed. In this court, he does not help him only when he makes a house, but does not memory the face of the customer, and that his refusal is a customer who is only one time more than twice a month from the investigative agencies, and that the perpetrator is not the defendant, D was drunk at the time of the occurrence of this case, and that he did not make the first statement at the investigative agencies.

arrow