2012. Bodily 52

A

A doctor's (public trial) and doctor's (public trial).

Law Firm B, Attorney C, D

June 29, 2012

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On June 21, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around 14:30 Jeju-do District Court 203, Jeju-do 203, Jeju-do 203, and (b) around 45, the Defendant: (c) her mother, her mother, went beyond the F’s head knife floor, and her mother, her mother, and her flife the victim’s bridge, and her boomed the victim’s bridge, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as a throdye and a blue blue part of the blue part, which

2. Determination

A. Defendant’s assertion

The defendant asserts at the time and place stated in the above facts charged that the victim’s mother fleeps up with the mother of the defendant’s head flick, and that there is no fact that the victim flicks up with the victim’s bridge.

B. Judgment on evidence consistent with the facts charged

(1) First, we examine the statements made by the victim in the investigative agency and the court.

First of all, the police and the prosecutor's office that “F” the defendant satisfe

찼다."(증거기록 10~11쪽, 64쪽)라거나 "피고인이 가슴을 차는 것을 보지는 못했지만, 피고인이 달려오면서 다리를 들어 올리는 것을 보았고 가슴을 맞은 것은 확실하며, 가슴이 많이 아팠는데 발로 차인 느낌이었다."(증거기록 136~138쪽)라고 진술하다가 이 법정에서는 "증인이 볼 수 없는 곳이었지만 피고인이 발로 찬 느낌이었다."라고 진술하면서도 신체 어느 부위를 차였는지에 관하여는 이를 특정하여 진술하지 못하고 있는 점, 피해자는 피고인으로부터 폭행을 당하였다는 날부터 2일이 지난 2011. 6. 23.에야 처음으로 병원에 간 점(증거기록 6쪽의 상해진단서), 피해자는 이 사건 당시 F으로부터 폭행을 당한 사실이 없음에도 그러한 사실이 있는 것처럼 F을 고소하였다가 무고죄로 벌금 100만 원의 약식명령을 받고 확정된 점 등에 비추어 그 진술은 그대로 믿기 어렵다.

(2) Next, we examine G’s statements in investigative agencies and courts.

G is a public duty personnel working in the Jeju District Court, as well as an investigative agency.

In the main examination of the prosecutor, the prosecutor stated in the court that "the defendant got up the victim's bridge."

However, the above G is a defense counsel's cross-examination and "the defendant is a victim's bridge."

In light of the above facts, the defendant, who was the husband of the victim, stated as follows: "It is not correct to see the face of the victim" or "I (the co-defendant of the lawsuit brought by E and H together with F)" or "I (the co-defendant of the lawsuit brought by the victim's husband), was unable to see that the defendant was able to see the victim's appearance, and that the defendant's statement that the defendant went beyond the victim's bridge does not coincide with the victim's statement; according to the testimony of the above G, the defendant, F, and H (the husband of the victim) was able to see that the situation the victim goes beyond the victim's appearance is likely to have brought about the victim's appearance or go beyond the victim's walk." In light of the above facts, the defendant's statement that the above G did not seem to have brought about the victim's appearance or go beyond the victim's walk at the time, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant made a statement by making it difficult to see the situation at the time of the above G.

(3) Meanwhile, even though the Defendant’s mother was able to report the Defendant’s act of assault, such as taking the Defendant’s head f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court shall render a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

Judges Kim Jong-k