logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.08.30 2013노921
재물손괴
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not damage the victim's property as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

2. In a criminal trial, the formation of a conviction must not be necessarily formed by direct evidence, but can be formed by indirect evidence as long as it does not violate the empirical and logical rules. Even if indirect evidence does not individually have full probative value of a criminal offense, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that the entire evidence does not have the sole probative value, and if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that does not exist the sole evidence, the criminal facts can also be acknowledged.

(2) The court below's decision on November 27, 2001 is justified and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the assent of all participating Justices.

The prosecutor presented G’s written statement to G, which was present as a witness in the court of original instance, and allowed G to peruse its contents, and then confirmed that the contents of the above written statement were written as the witness stated, and confirmed that “G signed and sealed or affixed a signature and seal or a seal between signature and seal,” and on this, G asked “I am memory because it was under the influence of alcohol at that time.” The above written statement by G cannot be said to be the authenticity of the above written statement, and therefore, the above written statement is inadmissible.

Therefore, the court below's approval of admissibility of the above statement is an illegal measure to adopt it as evidence.

arrow