logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2015.10.15 2014고단86
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등폭행)
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

On July 14, 2013, at around 02:30 on July 14, 2013, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol with the victim E (year 41) in the D cafeteria located in Daegu Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant was at one time the head of the victim due to an empty beer who is a dangerous object on the table, on the ground that the victim was able to act without a brucation while going against himself/herself.

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

The defendant and his defense counsel's arguments and the defendant and his defense counsel asserted the purport that "the defendant drinks the victim, F, G and alcohol at the time and place specified in the facts charged, and 1 times the victim's head with his hand at the time and place specified in the facts charged, but the defendant's head is not memory as a beer's disease, such as the facts charged."

Judgment

Among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in this case, there are the suspect interrogation protocol for the victim, the suspect interrogation protocol for the accused, the suspect interrogation protocol for the prosecution, the prosecutor's protocol for the F, the investigation report(G telephone statement hearing).

However, first of all, since the police interrogation protocol of the accused denies its contents in this court, the police statements of the accused are inadmissible.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., ① the victim stated in this court that “at the time, the victim took the head of the Defendant’s body in the vicinity of the supervisor at the time, and the victim made a statement to the same purport in the police investigation, but the victim later made the statement to the effect that “the Defendant was able to be her from the president of the restaurant rather than the beer’s disease,” and ii) the previous police’s statement to the effect that “the witness H, who is the president of the D restaurant, was her leader at the time.”

arrow