(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.31 2017고단8486

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.31 2017고단8486

특수상해

Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. On September 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) 22:35 on September 18, 2017, on the road owned by the Defendant E, which was parked in the front of the D Mart in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, D, with the victim F (41 aged) on the floor of the victim on the ground that the victim was under the influence of alcohol, and was able to take the face of the victim on the ground that he did not cover the trial expenses; and (b) on the part of the victim, when the victim was able to take the head of the victim’s body, the Defendant sent two parts of the number of days of treatment without the victim’s treatment to the victim.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the charge of special injury is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts charged in a criminal trial. The conviction is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is any doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interest of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003; 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the court are examined as follows. However, the fact that the defendant's statement was unfilledd, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone makes it possible for the victim to recover from the prosecutor who was a dangerous article like the facts charged.

There is a lack of recognition and there is no other evidence to prove it.

① At the time of making a statement to the police who was dispatched to the scene, the victim took the influence of alcohol at the time of preparing the first interrogation protocol of the police, and the same time at the time of responding to the defendant interrogation in this court, and left the victim and the substitute engineer with his/her happiness, and the defendant returned the substitute engineer to DNA.

The victim shall continue to take a bath at the rear seat of the victim.

참조판례

-대법원 2001. 8. 21. 선고 2001도2823 판결

-대법원 2003. 2. 11. 선고 2002도6110 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.11.16 2018노3756

-전주지방법원 2013.12.05 2013고단2138

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2017.11.22 2017고단406

-대전지방법원 공주지원 2014.09.19 2014고단138

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.02 2020고단9104