logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.01.12 2017고정560
폭행
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On May 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around the 11:50 on the 16th May 16, 2016, the gist of the facts charged is that the victimized person was a matter of the parking fee fee of the victim E (the remaining, the age of 24) and the Maurel; and (b) while having a dispute with the victim, he/she toward the Defendant.

The part of the victim’s dubage was cut into “a dubing dubling,” and the part of the victim’s dubling was assessed once.

Accordingly, the defendant committed violence against the victim's body.

2. The victim’s statement, photograph, and details of 112 report are admissible as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case.

In light of the fact that the statement of the victim is considerably specific and consistent, the victim was faced with the defendant immediately after the occurrence of the case, and reported to the police, it is true that there is a strong doubt that the defendant does not assault the victim, such as the facts charged.

However, the witness F, which can be said to be relatively objective because both the Defendant and the victim did not have a friendly relationship, states to the effect that “The scene was observed from the beginning of physical fighting, and the Defendant did not have any fact when she satisfing or satisfing the body part of the victim’s fat.” (Although the F appears to have been at the time of the victim’s severe breathment, it cannot be rejected the credibility of the victim’s statement solely on such circumstance). In light of the F’s statement as above, it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement as it is, and the remaining evidence alone proves that the facts charged of this case are beyond reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered after the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is not publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

arrow