(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.01.16 2014고정827

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.01.16 2014고정827

상해

Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. Around 19:00 on April 16, 2013, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) heard the horses of the victim D (the 59-year-old), who was a dynamic victim, around the Busan Jung-gu Office Office Officetel, that “I shall not use the ASEAN, her father’s her father’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her part

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). B.

In light of the following facts: (a) there is a statement in the victim D and E investigative agency and this court as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case; (b) there is a statement in the victim D and E investigative agency and this court; (c) in full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant complaint and the entire contents of the damage statement; (d) the relationship between D and E; (e) the circumstances leading up to the issuance of a written diagnosis of injury; and (e) the statement in the FF at the time of the issuance of the written diagnosis of injury; and (e) the statement in this court, it is difficult to believe the above D and E investigative agency and E; and (e) the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the victim’s father G’s statement,

The victim D and E make a statement to the effect that the police officer called to the scene by the victim's report at the time, and directly listened to the victim's statement and confirmed all damage situations. The prosecutor stated that the police officer "after this case," the police officer "after this case."

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 6. 25. 선고 2008도10096 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2014.04.04 2013고정137

-창원지방법원 2014.12.05 2014고정601

-창원지방법원 2015.02.06 2014고정672

-대구지방법원 2014.05.01 2013노2665

-창원지방법원 2014.09.26 2013고단3881