Whether a doctor’s statement or medical certificate itself can be a direct evidence of assault and injury (negative)

In the case of an injury, the statement or diagnosis by a doctor who diagnosed the person in question does not directly provide evidence of the fact itself such as assault and injury, but is a evidence of the part or degree of the injury in the case where the harmful act of assault and injury is recognized by other evidence. Therefore, the statement by a doctor or diagnosis prepared by him/her indicates his/her opinion that he/she had the person in question by external force as a result of the diagnosis of the victim, and it cannot be readily concluded that the cause of the injury was caused by the Defendant’s assault.

Articles 257 and 260 of the Criminal Act; Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2276 delivered on February 9, 1982, 81Do153 delivered on December 14, 1982

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 82No1123 delivered on November 12, 1982

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, at around 22:00 on November 29, 1982, the defendant recognized the fact that 2 injured the victim of this case on the 61st day of the Daegu Jung-gu Mag-gu Gag 61 in front of the galg glocketization, and that the victim of this case saw the victim's shop door by drinking, he applied the legal provisions on the injury of the defendant as to the defendant on the ground that he she saw the victim's flick-gu glick-gu glock and glick-gu glick-gu glick-gu glick-gu glick-gu glick-gu glock, etc., and glick-gu glick-gu glock.

살피건대, 원심이 피고인의 위 범행사실을 인정함에 있어서 채택한 증거를 보면, 피고인의 경찰 및 제1심 공판정에서의 진술, 증인 장용석의 공판정에서의 진술, 사법경찰리 작성의 피해자, 장용석, 정종구에 대한 각 진술조서의 기재 및 정종구 작성의 피해자에 대한 상해진단서의 기재등인바, 기록에 의하여 위 증거들을 검토하여 보면, 통상 상해사건의 경우 상처를 진단한 의사의 진술이나 진단서는 폭행, 상해 등의 사실자체에 대한 직접적인 증거가 되는 것은 아니고, 다른 증거에 의하여 폭행, 상해의 가해행위가 인정되는 경우에 그에 대한 상해의 부위나 정도의 점에 대한 증거가 된다 할 것인바, ( 당원 1982.2.9. 선고 81도2276 판결 참조), 이 사건에서 정종구의 진술이나 그가 작성한 진단서 역시 그가 의사로서 1981.11.29 피해자를 진찰한 결과 외력에 의하여 판시와 같은 상처가 있었다는 소견을 나타낸데 불과하고 그것만으로 위 상해의 원인이 피고인의 폭행에 의한 것이라고 단정할 자료로 할 수 없는 것이고, 피고인은 뒤에 설시하는 바와 같이 일관하여 피해자의 다리부분을 구타하여 상해를 입힌 사실을 부인하고 있어서 결국 이건 판시사실(공소사실에 의하면 피고인이 피해자의 다리, 배부분을 발로 찼다는 기재는 없다)을 인정할 수 있는 증거는 피해자 의 진술과 목격자 장용석의 진술 뿐이다.

However, according to the records, the defendant, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, has carried a breath of the victim's breath, and her bridged three times, but he did not agree with the victim's ship and bridge, and the victim tried to get out of the defendant, and he consistently stated that he was faced with the breath of the boundary of India and the roadway, and that he was faced with the breath of the breath of the roadway. On the contrary, the defendant's statements, such as Kim mar, breath, and breath who observed the situation at the time, are consistent with the defendant's statement, and the victim's breath's breath's and breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath's breath'

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant sought the victim's face face part only does not have any reason to satisfy on the part of the victim's face face part. However, the judgment below that recognized the victim's injury due to the defendant's assault was committed by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division, Daegu District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)