logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.14 2015노2051
상해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the statement of the victim that the defendant suffered the injury in question from the defendant, the content of the medical certificate of injury corresponding thereto, recording of the fact that the defendant affixed the victim, etc., the defendant may fully recognize the fact that the defendant has inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim as stated in the judgment below, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

As consistent from the investigation agency to the court of the trial of the case, the Defendant consistently stated, “In order to defend the victim’s left head with the improvement cited by the victim’s hand, and put two arms of the victim to defend them. However, the victim continued to be plucked by plucking and plucking up his hand, thereby preventing the victim from passing ahead of both arms of the victim’s head and face. During that process, the victim was placed above his head, used, was broken down, and the victim was frighten, and the victim was frightd immediately before the above head.” The Defendant stated, “The victim did not assault the victim, and there was no fact that the victim was frightd, and the victim made a false assertion.” The content of the Defendant’s photograph and the diagnosis report taken on the day of the instant case also conforms with the Defendant’s statement.

B. On the other hand, at the time of the first investigation conducted by the police, the victim did not see the defendant with the right to self-determination, and the victim heard and talked with the defendant.

arrow