209 Highest958 Injury

A (83 years old, female)

Maternal Exchange

Attorney Park Jong-won (National Assembly)

September 28, 2009

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Summary of Facts charged

피고인은 부산 사하구 괴정3동 ○ 유치원 ♥반 선생님이었던 사람이다.

피고인은 2008. 10. 15. 14:00경 위 유치원 ♥반에서, 피해자 C(3세)가 정리정돈을 하지 아니하고 싸움놀이를 한다는 등의 이유로 화가 나 손으로 피해자의 왼쪽 뺨 부위를 때리는 등 피해자에게 전치 3주의 안면부타박 및 안면부근육하혈종형성 등의 상해를 가하였다.

Maz.

1. 이 사건 공소사실에 부합하는 듯한 직접적인 증거로는 ① 피해자의 수사기관(15면) 및 이 법정에서의 진술, ② 피해자의 어머니인 C1의 수사기관 및 이 법정에서의 진술, ③ 피해자의 할머니인 C2의 수사기관 및 이 법정에서의 진술, ④ 증인 D의 일부 진술(피해자의 뺨에 줄 같은 것이 꽉꽉 가 있었다는 부분), 6 진단서(고소장 첨부), 의무기 록사본 증명서, 수사보고(10면 첨부 사진), 사진(검사 8면)이 있다.

2. A. First, the victim’s statement is examined as to the credibility of the victim’s statement. The victim’s answer to the purport that he/she was asked by his/her father who found his/her wife during the process of leaving the kindergarten on the day of the instant case and was faced with the Defendant. Therefore, the victim’s statement cannot be assessed as low in its credibility solely on the ground that he/she was a child of 3 years

However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the victim's statement made by each of the statements made by the witness D, C, D1, and D2, each police statement, written complaint, written opinion of opinion (A prosecutor 15 pages), a copy of medical records, a certificate of investigation report (A. 10 pages, 136 pages, 227 pages), a photograph (A. 8 pages), a photo (A. 8 pages), and a fact-finding report to the Central U. Hospital (A. 7 May 2009 and August 25, 2009).

① On October 16, 2008, 2008, the victim’s victim-friendly arrest D3 stated that the mother’s question on whether the victim met the Defendant was her snow, and that her her son was her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

② Around October 16, 2008, the victim respondeded to the following questions: “The mother’s question to the effect that the son was d4 times the son’s life,” and “D4 was flick and flicked even if son was flick.”

③ The filing of the instant complaint by the injured party appears to be the largest cause of the injured party’s wife and the blood frighting side. The pictures of the injured party taken in Anden Park around October 15, 2008, prior to the crime of this case, around October 15, 2008, at the time of the crime of this case, have a shade of the upper part of the left side. In addition, “I have a centering on the upper part of the inner part of the eye and the upper part of the body of the deceased.” The change of the blood fright was extended to the upper part of the body of the injured party (the 15th page), and on October 16, 2008, the statement of opinion on the injured party (the 15th page), and on October 16, 2008, the red side of the body of the injured party did not observe the upper part of the upper part of the body and the possibility of the injured party’s injury to the upper part or the upper part of the body.”

(4) 피해자는 이 법정에서 증언함에 있어, '아빠한테도 손바닥으로 뺨을 맞은 적이 있느냐'는 취지의 질문에 '예, 매일 맞아요, 아무것도 안 하는데'라고 진술한 반면(다만, 심문 끝부분에서 ‘아무 것도 안 때려요'라고 진술을 번복하였다), 피해자의 아버지인 증인 D1은 피해자가 태어나서 현재까지 두 번 회초리로 엉덩이와 종아리를 때린 적이 있다고 진술하였고, 피해자의 어머니인 CI 또한 검찰에서 진술함에 있어 '피해자가 한 번도 맞아 본 적이 정말로 없나요, 솔직히 대답해 주시죠'라는 검사의 질문에 대하여, '집에서 거의 때리지는 않고 진짜 잘못했을 경우 손바닥을 때리거나 손을 들고 있게 한다.’, ‘아빠도 크게 때린 것은 없다.'는 취지로 대답한 점(227면 수사보고에 첨부된 CD 재생시간 17:11경)에 비추어 볼 때, 피해자의 진술에 과장이 없다고 보기 어렵다. ⑤ 피해자의 부모는 피해자의 이마의 상처 또한 피고인의 행위로 인한 것으로 단정하고 고소장에 그에 대한 기재를 하고, 심리평가를 의뢰하면서 임상심리사에게 “선생 님으로부터 볼을 맞았으며, 넘어지면서 한쪽 이마를 부딪치기도 했다”고 말하였으나, 에덴공원에서 촬영된 사진, 피해자 측에서 제출한 사진에 비추어 이마의 상처가 폭행에 의하여 발생한 것이라고 보기는 어렵다. 한편, 피해자는 경찰에서 선생님에게 어떻게 혼났어요'라는 경찰의 질문에 대하여 '(아버지의 뺨을 2차례 때리며) 이렇게, 이렇 게'라고 진술하였음에 반하여, 이 법정에서는 '볼과 이마를 때렸다'는 취지로 진술한 점, 피해자는 ♥반 친구들의 이름을 전혀 기억하지 못하면서도 피고인의 폭행 사실에 대해서는 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점, 피해자는 같은 반 친구인 D3의 진술과는 달리 피고인이 뺨을 당기거나 엉덩이를 때리는 경우가 없다는 취지로 진술하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피해자의 진술이 부모나 주변 사람의 영향을 받아 왜곡되었을 가능성을 부인할 수 없다.

(b) We examine the remaining evidence, including any statements in C1’s investigative agencies and in this Court, C2’s investigative agencies and in this Court:

C2’s statement was made to the effect that on October 16, 2008, the victim was assaulted by the Defendant by son while finding a Ban against the Defendant on October 16, 2008, and that son was the son’s son or son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s statement

C2 The words and actions of the son sent to C2 are true to suspect that the Defendant assaulted the victim's face face. However, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged in light of the above evidence are: ① such words and actions are in conflict with the victim's pro-fashion D3 and D4's statements; ② the words and actions of the son are in line with D2's statements; ② the day of the instant case are in line with son's statements and actions and the statements of the victim; ③ in D4, there is no trace of the bodily injury; ③ in the case of D4, the question was conducted in the form of inducing the victim to answer on the premise that the Defendant used the above bodily injury; ③ The question was conducted in the form of inducing the victim to answer the victim on the premise that the Defendant used the above bodily injury; and the Defendant's words and actions cannot be readily concluded that it was difficult to deem the Defendant's face to prevent the Defendant from harming the victim by tending the victim and D4. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem the Defendant's face to be above.

In addition, the part of C1 and C2’s statement based on the victim’s statement is difficult to acknowledge the credibility of the victim’s statement as seen earlier, and even if considering the remaining evidence, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was injured by considering the victim’s face face, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant suffered bodily injury, such as the formation of an inner and inner saved saved saved saves, and the formation of an inner saved saved saves saves saves saves,

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is decided as per Disposition by the decision of not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judge Kim Young-hoon