(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.09.27 2019고정307

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.09.27 2019고정307

상해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 15, 2018, around 17:10 on October 17, 2018, the Defendant assaulted the victim by breathing d(57 years of age) and the president of the association of the above commercial buildings in Songpa-gu (57 years of age).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The summary of the facts charged is the time and place indicated in the facts charged as indicated in the judgment, and the issue of selecting the victim D(57 years old) and the head of the association of the above commercial building, which led the victim to the injury of the victim, such as spawn, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment as spawn and spawn.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is recognized that the Defendant was issued a written diagnosis of injury with the same content after receiving a diagnosis of 14-day catum and chest fat, at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, the victim’s fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-fat-out, etc.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the defendant's injury to D.

① The above injury diagnosis report was prepared on the day following the occurrence of the instant case, and the diagnosis name stated in the injury diagnosis report is merely a clinical presumption dependent on the victim’s statement.

② At the time of receiving a medical examination at a hospital in this court, the victim stated that he did not actually purchase the medicine, and that he did not visit the hospital again except for the medical treatment on the day.

(3) The Defendant and the victim’s body are fighting at the site of the instant case.

참조조문

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.07.01 2014노6543

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2015.01.28 2014고단969

-의정부지방법원 2014.11.27 2014고정2382

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2014.08.07 2014고단306

-수원지방법원 2019.07.04 2018고정2074