208 Highest 4933 Bodiis

A (52 years old, South)

Kim Jong-hun

Attorney Han-hee

November 21, 2008

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On June 3, 2008, at around 23:30 on June 23:3, 2008, the Defendant: (a) caused the victim’s breast part of the chest part of the victim’s chest part, which was cut off to the stairs that was pushed down by hand, to the extent that the victim’s operation was completed; and (b) caused the victim’s injury to the left part in need of treatment for about 84 days.

2. Determination

The Defendant, due to his mistake, recognized the fact that the victim suffered a wound identical to the above facts charged, but the Defendant did not have any reason to inflict an injury on the victim's hand, and did not have the body in the influence of alcohol, and in light of his memory, it goes beyond the degree of unbrushing the victim's stairs leading to a singing practice room, and it goes beyond the degree of unbrushing the victim's memory, thereby denying the intention of injury.

The defendant is only the victim (the victim stated that the victim was the same as the victim Eul and C, but the victim was not present at the scene of the accident because he was in the delivery of a singing practice room at the time) and the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was unable to properly memory the situation at the time, and it is difficult for the victim to accurately state the situation at the time. Thus, the determination of the facts charged of this case depends on how reliable the victim's statement can be made or how objective circumstances recognized by the records of this case are consistent with logical rules or empirical rules in light of the objective circumstances recognized by the records of this case.

우선 피해자가 주장하는 사고 당시 상황은 "자신은 그 날 딸이 아파서 가게를 일찍 마치려고 가게 안을 청소하고 있는데 피고인 일행 3명이 와서 장사를 안하느냐고 물어마친다고 하니 아무 말 없이 돌아갔고 지하 아래 계단에서 시작해 위쪽으로 계단청소를 하여 마지막 계단을 청소하고 있는데 위 3명이 다시 오길래 자신이 '어머 손님 아까 분명히 가게 문을 닫는다고 말씀 드렸는데'라고 했더니 B가 '어 씨발 뭘 마쳐'라고 욕을 했고 갑자기 피고인이 손으로 가슴 부분을 사정없이 밀어버려 계단 맨 위쪽에서 아래까지 한 번에 툭하고 떨어졌고 피고인도 같이 떨어져 계단 바닥에 내 몸 위에 포개어 진 상태로 넘어져 있었다"는 것이다.

However, there are questions as follows to believe the above statement of the victim as it is.

First, the Defendant was going to go to the singing room located in his own Dong while drinking with his behaviors at the time, and was going to go to the singing room of the victim, and the victim did not have any dispute at the time of entering the singing room of the victim, and find another singing room again, and the victim's singing room again entered the singing room of the victim (it may be thought that the Defendant was unsatisfying the same singing room and that it was unsatisfying at that place while finding the singing room) and did not have any conversation with the victim, it cannot be found that the Defendant was under the part of the stairs of the victim on the ground that he was unsatisfying the victim on the ground of his age of 56. Furthermore, the Defendant was not subject to a summary order of a fine of KRW 200,00,000 for a violation of the Building Act in 198, and that he was under the same kind of drinking as a matter of course, and there was no other person who was under the influence of drinking.

Second, at the same time with the victim, the defendant was suffering from the head part of the fire in the floor and lost consciousness. However, if the defendant was faced with the victim who was in front of the last stairs before the flight of stairs, it is not easy for the defendant to easily understand why he was deprived of the victim as the victim. If the victim was not aware of why the defendant was hick, and the power of the victim was not properly delivered when the defendant was pushed the victim, the defendant's body can be cut back in front, but if the defendant's hand was contacted with the victim's body at a time below the stairs above the stairs, it seems that the defendant did not fall at the same time with the victim in light of empirical rule.

Third, in a case where the Defendant was at the center of the victim for any reason after the Defendant was pushed down with the victim and pushed down, it would be consistent with the empirical rule to inflict a considerable injury in light of the degree of injury of the victim. However, if the Defendant was unable to perform a job during this framework because of pain on the head and shoulder part of the victim, and did not have any particular address, it seems unlikely that the Defendant would have become the above. The instant singing practice room is located under the ground of the building, and in order to go into a singing practice room, 14 out of the stairs with a width of 17 cm, height of 20 cm away from the underground entrance to the underground, and 17 cm in width, 140 cm in height, and 140 cm in length to the port, and the stairs are installed as both walls, and there is no separate railing.

Therefore, in light of the fact that the Defendant, drunk, was under the influence of stairs, and there seems to be very high possibility of falling vadi, and the Defendant stated that the Defendant was frightening with the Defendant, even though he was frightening with the Defendant on the top of the stairs, it seems impossible for the victim to take the stairs up at one time at that place, such as the Defendant’s statement, it can be seen that the Defendant was frighting with the Defendant at several places where the stairs were cut off. If the Defendant was under the influence of the Defendant’s hand and fell down the victim into the stairs floor as he was under the influence of the Defendant, it seems that the Defendant was frightened from the perspective of the victim, and if the Defendant fell, the Defendant might have been frightened, and the victim did so, if he fell under the direction of the Defendant, and the victim was bread with the Defendant’s body, which would result in a fall away from the Defendant’s room without any contradiction.

Although it is close to the situation where the victim suffers from a severe pain by a drunk defendant without any mistake, the conviction in a criminal trial shall be based on strict evidence that makes the judge not have any reasonable doubt, and as seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone caused an injury to the victim with the intention of the injury as stated in the indictment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

Judges Go Jae-in