logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 영덕지원 2016.10.05 2016고단121
폭행
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 10:00 on July 11, 2015, the Defendant was working as a daily worker at the construction site of 172 feet district of 172 feet underground in the building site of Ulsan-gu nuclear power plant 1, Ulsan-gun, Seoul-do, the Defendant thought that the working group leader of the Working Group would have reached the working group leader that the working attitude of the Defendant would be bad, and that the victim C (the age of 49) would have reached the working attitude of the Defendant, and assault the victim, such as taking the victim's face one time by drinking, and taking the flap of the victim's flap, and then pushing the victim's flap.

Summary of Evidence

Defendant’s partial statement

The defendant asserts that some police interrogation protocol D against the defendant, each police protocol investigation report on C's protocol of statement (recompicing the phone statement E), investigation report (compicing the victim's e phone statement hearing) and investigation report (compicing the victim's e phone statement hearing) were carried out, but there was no fact that the victim was in drinking.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) The victim made concrete statements concerning the circumstances of violence and damage, the act of the defendant, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., and it does not conflict with the statements of other witnesses.

② At the time, E also testified that the victim was suitable for the defendant’s handbook.

D, after the dispute between two parties, the defendant and the victim stated that the victim's face was unsatisfed as if the victim's face were met.

③ The Defendant, at the police station, stated that the Defendant only spawned the victim’s timber once with her fingers, and that the victim’s breath was not a public figure. However, in this court, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement was not consistent, such as making the victim’s flab and making the victim’s flab, and making the victim’s flab,

In light of these circumstances, the defendant can recognize the fact of assaulting the victim.

arrow