2017 Gohap886 Bodily Injury

A

Han Jin-hee (Court) and Kim Chang-sub (Court of Justice)

Law Firm B, Attorney C

November 23, 2018

The accused shall notify publicly the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The defendant is the child of the victim D (math, 91).

A. On February 10, 2009, the Defendant: (a) around 10, 2009, the victim heard the sound disputing the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife Fxx; (b) interfered with the Defendant’s husband and wife fighting on the second floor; and (c) caused the victim to drive away from the stairs to the victim’s side, such as the victim, and caused the victim to have the victim cut off from the stairs to the first floor, thereby causing the victim’s injury, such as a sudden 12-class sexual gale in the treatment days.

B. On March 8, 2012, the Defendant, at the first floor of the same place as paragraph (a) of this Article, brought an injury to the victim, such as a so-called dumme, Inc., closed, left, etc. on the left-hand side of the number of treatment days, by taking into consideration the victim’s body in hand, who did not request the payment of money from the victim at the victim’s room at the same time as paragraph (a). On November 24, 2014, the Defendant demanded the victim to request money from the victim within the victim’s room at the same place as Paragraph (a), and upon the victim’s refusal, led the part of the victim’s arms to the ward, used the victim’s body toward a softened with the victim, and caused the victim’s injury to the victim, such as the bones of the bones in the number of treatment days, by taking into account the victim’s body toward a small wave. The Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, who is a lineal ascendant on three occasions.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the admissibility of the evidence in common

1) A confirmation of fact prepared by G (No. 13), a document prepared by D (No. 40), and D’s agent’s written opinion (No. 51) are inadmissible as evidence because the defendant did not consent to use it as evidence, and the authenticity of its establishment was not proven by the testimony of the originator, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence.

2) Each police statement of D (No. 14, 15, 36) and the police statement of G (No. 16) regarding D did not consent to the defendant being admitted as evidence, and the consistency between the statement and the protocol was not proven by the statement of the person making the original statement, and there was no opportunity for the defense counsel to examine the person making the original statement, and there was no proof that the statement recorded in the protocol was made in a particularly reliable state, and thus, it is inadmissible.

3) In comparison with the provisions of Article 30(6) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Article 26(6) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, the video CD (the order 42) is prepared by the prosecutor pursuant to Article 221(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the course of investigating a witness D, and insofar as the defendant did not consent to the use of the record as evidence, the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Act that limit the use of the record to proving the actual authenticity of the statement by the witness or to arouse the witness’s memory cannot be used as independent evidence that can directly prove the facts charged, in comparison with the provisions of Article 30(6) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and Article 26(6) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, since the recording and the recording (the order 46) recording of the record and the contents of the above video CD that cannot be used as evidence, it cannot be used as evidence (see Supreme Court Decision

B. Determination as to the injury sustained on February 10, 2009

1) According to the medical examination request (ever No. 5) and the fact-finding inquiry reply data about the professional examiners, the victim was found to have 12 scarcitys with the result of the CT examination on February 10, 2009. The victim, on February 11, 2009, was administered 4-5 scarcitys to remove scarcitys from the vertebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrates, and ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrates.

2) However, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by this Court by the evidence duly adopted and examined: ① MadI test conducted on February 5, 2009, before the date of this part of the charge, which was MadI test conducted on February 5, 2009; ② MadI test conducted on February 11, 2009, which is irrelevant mainly to the alley 12, with an operation conducted to treat diseases caused by sedebrates and chronism; ③ No. 12, there is no additional treatment records on the alley 12, after MadI test (the fact-finding response submitted by the special prosecutor) (4), it is difficult to view that MadI MadI test conducted by the H Hospital as the MadI test conducted on February 5, 2009, and that there is no other evidence to prove any causal relationship between the victim and the injury caused by an accident (the 2nd 12th MadI test record).

1) According to the records of operation (net 8) and the fact-finding inquiry reply data of the professional examiners, the victim's discovery of the left-of-hand malone of the anti-mare type of anti-mary from March 8, 2012, as a result of X-ray taken on March 8, 2012, and the victim can recognize the fact that he/she was under closed stalone

2) However, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by this court by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., (i) the victim and at least 70 senior citizens, such as the victim, are combined with a representative high-ranking sacrife that is caused by abortions; (ii) the above injury is likely to occur by making the body of the defendant sacrife as stated in the facts charged, and the possibility that it might occur directly due to it. (iii) On the other hand, it is difficult to view that the facts charged are not included in the charges that the defendant had to go beyond the victim; and (iv) it is difficult to find that the defendant's body was removed from the victim's body to the extent that the victim's body was removed from the victim's body (such as the victim's body) and that there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant's body was removed from the victim's body (such as the victim's body).

1) There exists a legal statement from the victim as evidence consistent with the facts charged in this part. There is a statement from the JJ to the effect that the above statement constitutes the victim’s specialized statement made by the original person. However, since the above statement falls under the victim’s specialized statement made by the original person, it does not constitute a case where the original person is unable to make a statement due to a reason as prescribed by Article 316(2)

2) Meanwhile, according to the certificate of hospitalization (investigative record 460 pages), and the fact-finding reply materials from the professional examiner, it can be acknowledged that the victim was found to have been found to have pel-ray and the vertebrate febral fecule at the upper part of the bones of the Trade Union and the bones of RoI on November 25, 2014.

3) However, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by this court's legitimately adopted and investigated evidence, i.e., evidence that the above defendant used to assault the victim as stated in the preceding paragraph (1) do not exist outside of the J's legal statement. Unlike the legal statement, J made a statement to the effect that the victim was not aware of the harm of the defendant at the time of finding the victim's injury on the lower end of 2014, 11, 25, and 17, it is difficult to believe that the defendant's injury was caused by the defendant's injury at the time, and that it was hard to find that the victim was unable to use the victim's remaining 1, because it was hard to find that the victim was injured by the victim's injury, and that it was hard to find that the victim was unable to use the victim's remaining 1, in light of the fact that the victim was unable to use the victim's remaining 1, 204, and that it was difficult to use the victim's remaining 1,006.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since all of the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, a not-guilty verdict is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and a summary of this judgment is publicly announced pursuant to the main sentence of

The presiding judge, the Full Judge Line

Judges Kang Jin-han

Judges Do Residents-ho