logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.02.06 2013고정2559 (1)
상해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 15:47, the summary of the facts charged: (b) considered the victim E as “D factory” located in Sungsung-si; (c) considered the business investment fund as “in-depth tax calculation of annual revenues and expenditures”; and (d) took twice the victim’s arms as drinking, the Defendant saw the victim as a shoulder and the arms that need to be treated for up to two weeks.

2. From the investigative agency to this court, the Defendant consistently denied the charges by consistently denying the charges that: (a) since the investigative agency, the Defendant reported the head of the Ban to the victim E in advance; (b) the police investigation has been well conducted on the NAV portion; and (c) the interest has only stated that he was a “satisfy” and there has not been any injury by assaulting E.

Although there is a statement in E investigative agency and this court and a written diagnosis of injury to E as shown in the facts charged of this case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record are nothing more than evidence of the fact that there was an injury to E at the time of the diagnosis, and the defendant cannot be evidence of the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on E as shown in the facts charged. ② E appears in this court as a witness and appears in this court as “the defendant was at the time when the money is given,” and it is deemed that the defendant was at the time of drinking two times on the left side, but there is no specific statement about other circumstances. However, the first investigative agency did not make a specific statement on the other circumstances, “I will not submit a diagnosis, despite having no external prize,” and the first investigative agency did not issue a written diagnosis of injury to E on May 24, 2012 after one month from the date of the occurrence of this case, but it is consistent with the witness’s testimony from the hospital to the point of time when he or she was given a witness at the time and at the place of work.

arrow