logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2016.11.10 2016고단937
폭행치상
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim C(the age of 57) are legal couples.

At around 15:30 on May 15, 2016, the Defendant asserted the issue of where to use the money borrowed in the Defendant’s residence of Pyeongtaek-si Do 103 Dong 502, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the upper pelle of the left-hand body in need of 7 weeks by putting the victim’s vessel up to the floor once.

Summary of Evidence

1. A witness C and E’s legal statement;

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. The E and C statements;

1. E (the defendant and his wife) who was at the scene of notification of the department related to the report of the 112 Incident and the written diagnosis of injury (the determination of evidence) was prepared to the effect that the defendant got married to the hospital on the day of the instant case under the investigation of the married police by the victim in the situation of being escorted to the hospital.

The victim also received the diagnosis at the hospital on the day of the case, and the defendant told the doctor that he suffered the injury by going beyond the next letter.

한편, 피고인은 사건 당일 경찰 조사를 받으면서 피고인이 피해자를 발로 찼다는 E의 진술에 대하여 명확하게 부정하지 않았다.

After the 2th day of the case, the victim entered the statement in the police, and stated that the defendant exceeded the string and exceeded the left string, and that he did not want to take ad hoc measures or punishment against the defendant.

The above statements made by the victim and E investigation agency are highly reliable in light of the time, circumstances, and contents of the statements.

In this Court, the victim and E consistently make a statement that the defendant had gone beyond the victim due to the appearance of the defendant, and the statement about the present situation is generally consistent with each other.

The contents of the confirmation document attached to the victim's petition for divorce and E are different from those of the above witness's investigative agency and court.

arrow