beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On April 25, 2013, at around 10:00, the Defendant, within the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment management office, inflicted injury on the victim D (Nam and 67 years of age), who was the head of the management office, on the part of the victim D, who was in charge of the management office, to “drawing the poster related to the representative election of the apartment, without permission, was removed” and the victim’s lower part of the poster was flicked and flicked to the flick, etc., who was in need of the victim’s treatment for about 10 days.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Witnesses D and E respective legal statements;
1. As to the existence of the instant injury as a result of the diagnosis of doctor F’s injury and the fact inquiry (G hospital), each of the statements of D and E and the Defendant, H and I, the purport of innocence, are extremely controversial.
The defendant and D's statements are directly made by the parties, on the one hand, the most reliable, but on the other, there is room to see that objectivity is insufficient.
Therefore, this paper first examines the probative value of other evidence except each of the defendant and D's statements.
First of all, according to the doctor F’s death diagnosis and inquiry results (G hospital), it is not clear that the cause is clearly revealed, but it is clear that the result of the injury, such as the clifeb, etc., occurred to D on April 25, 2013.
However, each statement of H and I is that "the defendant was in the lower part of D's point," and this is an act that cannot cause the result of the above injury.
On the other hand, E’s statement is that “the defendant gets d's back less than D and flaps, which conforms to the result of the above injury.”
In addition, H and I conflict clearly with D (H and I voluntarily state the above conflicting situation), and H and I seem to be the conflict between the defendant and the defendant.
(I) On the other hand, E does not seem to have clearly recognized the conflict situation.