logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2013.09.25 2013고정252
폭행
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around February 3, 2013, the summary of the facts charged was as follows: (a) around 17:25, the Defendant: (b) committed assault against the victim D (the age of 78) who was not good between the neighbors on the road front of the Defendant’s house in order to prevent drainage apparatus and access roads by reclaiming the paddys in front of his house into soil; and (c) during the dispute, the Defendant used the victim’s love roof water to the Defendant’s house, and used the victim’s fright to prevent the packaging of the road without draininging the road. In doing so, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s two arms.

2. As to the allegations and determination of this case, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that there was only a fact that the victim took clothes retails of the victim in order to talk about the defect while the victim talks with the Defendant, and that there was no assault, such as breaking down the two arms of the victim.

Therefore, as indicated in the facts charged in this case, whether the defendant committed an assault, such as scambling the body of the victim, etc., the witness E was aware of the fact by the statement made by this court in this court, and by the statement made by the judicial police officer on E. In other words, the defendant's wife was heard after the defendant at the time when the defendant talks with the victim at the time of the above temporary location, but the defendant was not seen as scaming and scaming the body of the victim. At the same time, even though the defendant did not talk in a good atmosphere with the victim, it appears that the defendant did not talk with the victim at the time of the above temporary location, but did not talk or scambling, and the victim did not talk with the victim, but the victim did not have any fact at the time of the police investigation. However, the victim was diagnosed by the hospital for about 15 days after the occurrence of this case, but the victim was diagnosed by the defendant beyond 197.

arrow