logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.05.30 2013노1627
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. At the time of the summary of the grounds of appeal, the victim D’s 112 was obstructed by H’s business, and the defendant was in his own process, and even if the video CD was reproduced, it is obvious that the defendant did not assault D, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground of the statement of D without credibility, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant is an employee of a cargo transport business entity called “C”, and the victim D(57 years of age) is an employee of the said business entity under the name of “C”, his/her parent.

On June 1, 2013, at around 10:15, the Defendant, at the entrance corridor of the above office No. 125, “G” located in F in Gyeonggi-si, the Defendant, at around 10:15 on June 1, 2013, got the victim over the floor by pushing the victim’s shoulder with his hand during a horse fighting with his hands, and caused the victim to be injured by the 14-day crypitiss that require medical treatment.

B. The lower court found the witness D guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the witness D’s legal statement, video CD, and the injury diagnosis report.

C. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the original judgment and the trial court, namely, ① A has consistently stated the facts of damage to the original trial by the investigative agency prior to the original trial; ② The Defendant’s reproduction of video CD was in accord with D’s statement that it appears that D had been seriously shakingd with D’s moving pictures, ③ A was issued with an injury diagnosis corresponding to the facts of damage before the date of the instant crime; and immediately thereafter filed the instant complaint, unlike D’s statement, D is a person who reported 112 at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant and H were waiting for arrival at the time of the instant case.

arrow