logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.09.13 2013고정1366
상해등
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. On May 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) on the street before the entrance of “E Real Estate” located in Gwangju-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju on the ground that the victim F (hereinafter “victim”) parked a vehicle closely; and (b) as to the fact that the victim was the victim of the damage, the Defendant, the victim, and the witness’s statements are identical.

The mobile phone device was damaged to be in excess of KRW 105,00,000, by cutting and damaging the mobile phone device in his hand.

B. At around 14:25 on May 16, 2013, the Defendant, on the ground that the victim F was able to compensate for the mobile phone damaged by the victim F at the above location, he/she was faced with the victim’s right shoulder at several times, and the victim was faced with an unknown physical part that requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Defendant is denying this part of the charges on the following grounds: (a) from an investigative agency to an investigation agency to this court, the Defendant did not have any dispute with the victim at that time; (b) did not have any damage caused by the victim’s mobile phone device; and (c) did not know about the fact that the aforementioned mobile phone device fell from the floor.

(2) The witness G stated in this Court that “The victim continued to have his driver’s seat at the time when he was seated with his driver’s seat and left seat so far as he left the floor and failed to do so again. The Defendant thereafter stated that “E real estate was at the entrance of the “E real estate” and that the mobile phone period was not likely to fall on the floor because there was a dispute between the victim and the victim,” and that “The mobile phone period was not likely to fall on the floor.”

Of course, the witness G is in a position where the defendant can make a statement in favor of the defendant as the workplace of the defendant, but it is false in light of the contents and attitude of the above witness in this court.

arrow