(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.06 2014고정2564

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.06 2014고정2564

상해

Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. On May 30, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 01:00, at a “D” restaurant run by C itself; (b) at the “D” restaurant run by C itself; (c) at the victim E (35 years of age) who is a customer, made a fluorous speech to the female players of the victim E (35 years of age); and (d) calculated the upper victim’s fluor

Accordingly, the Defendant dumpeded the victim with "whether it is a evidence," and flaged the victim's bridge, thereby tighting the victim's bridge.

As a result, the defendant suffered from the victim for about 21 days of treatment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

1) From the investigative agency to this court, the Defendant consistently asserted that there was no fact that the victim went beyond the Defendant’s bridge, and the victim was faced with the victim’s face, and that there was no injury to the victim, as stated in the facts charged. 2) According to the result of this court’s examination of CCTV CD, the victim’s name can be verified by the face where the “victim” goes beyond the Defendant’s name by leaving the victim’s bridge, and it is not confirmed that “the Defendant” goes beyond the victim’s bridge as indicated in the facts charged, as indicated in the facts charged.

The victim stated in this court that the above CD was recorded only once, as in the face of the recording.

3. On the day of the instant case, the “report on occurrence” stated that the Defendant committed several assaults against the victim’s eye to drinking”, and it is deemed that the victim was sexually injured the police on the day of the instant case by drinking.

The victim is on the date of the instant case.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.09.23 2016고정1207

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.10.24 2018고단1027

-제주지방법원 2012.6.29. 선고 2012고정52 판결

-서울서부지방법원 2019.05.13 2019고단752

-부산지방법원 2016.03.31 2015노4479