logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.07.13 2017고단705
폭행
Text

The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the victim E, who is located in Ulsan-gu Northern-gu C around September 13, 2016 and who spread water to the toilet floor from the first-story male toilet for the closure of the D 3 plant, and who is in charge of cleaning the place, can slick the floor from the victim E.

In response to the removal, the boomed the victim's bath, and assaulted the victim's breath with his hand by breath and then pushed the victim's breath.

2. The key issue of the instant case is “whether or not the Defendant was engaged in fating,” and the instant facts charged was proven without reasonable doubt in light of the following circumstances, i.e., defatization of E’s statement and the probative value of the remaining evidence, other than E that he was engaged in fating fating fats.

shall not be deemed to exist.

A. The progress summary of the instant case (1) was submitted by the Defendant, not E, to the first investigative agency regarding the instant facts charged. The Defendant, at the entrance of a male toilet as indicated on the date indicated in the instant facts charged, submitted a written petition from E to the police, stating that “the Defendant was injured by two weeks by drinking the chest,” and was investigated by the police as of September 20, 2016.

(2) On September 20, 2016, E, upon being examined as a suspect by the police on the same seal, stated that “I am flaps from the Defendant before the male toilet as indicated in its holding, there is no flapsing one end of the Defendant, and instead, I am flaps from the Defendant.”

(3) On September 21, 2016, the cross-examination was conducted between the Defendant and E, and two persons maintained the same position as each of the aforementioned statements.

(4) On November 2, 2016, the three-time interrogation of the suspect was conducted against E., and E stated that “In the situation where there was a false response as a result of the detection of a false horse that was conducted prior to the search, the statement was modified up to the point of time to the effect that “the Defendant was satisfing the Defendant’s chest as her hand, and her was satched by her hand.”

arrow