beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On May 25, 2015, at E-cafeteria operated by D in Songpa-gu Seoul on May 25, 2015, the Defendant re-examineed whether he/she paid meal expenses, despite having paid meal expenses, at E-cafeteria operated by D in Songpa-gu Seoul on the ground that he/she is bad, and that he/she was next to a dispute.
D’s friendship victim G(Woo, 29 years old) called fighting “Woo .. in Woo”, and the victim’s boomed the victim’s neck by hand, and the victim resisted, and assaulted the female’s boom with his hand at one time.
Summary of Evidence
1. Entry of a defendant in part in the protocol of second public trial;
1. Each legal statement of witness G, D and H;
1. Statement made by the prosecution with respect to G or D;
1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's statements of G, D, and H are not reliable, by denying the crime of this case.
However, each statement of G, D, and H is consistent and concrete in that the defendant stated on the date, time, and place of the crime, stated in the crime, told the victim in his/her hand, and breads the victim's click, followed.
According to the results of the reproduction of the motion picture USB, it is recognized that the defendant was physically interested in assaulting the victim's timber by hand, which conforms to the statements of G, D and H.
Therefore, in full view of each of the above evidence, G, D, and H’s statements are able to believe that the facts constituting the crime in the judgment are sufficiently recognized (the problem of each of the above statements by G, D, and H alleged by the Defendant is that the difference between human recognition, hearing, and presentation process is limited to the difference between the virtual statements that can be naturally available in the process of expression, and such circumstance is not likely to suspect the credibility of these statements). On the other hand, the witness F’s statement in the court is inconsistent with the above video USB reproduction result, and G prevents the Defendant from doing so.
How to specifically prohibit the statements; and
his memory is available to the question.