The case of violation of the rules of evidence that found guilty of the violation of the rule of evidence and the consistent value judgment of the evidence before and after the inconsistency;

The case of violation of the rules of evidence that found guilty of the violation of the rule of evidence and the consistent value judgment of the evidence before and after the inconsistency;

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 89No7 delivered on June 29, 1989

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 영진교통주식회사 소속운전자들인 피고인과 원심공동피고인, 공소외 1, 2가 공동하여 그 판시 일시 및 장소에서 피해자 1이 운전하는 공소외 3주식회사 소속택시 충북 1바5729호가 정차하고 있는 것을 보고 파업에 협조하지 않는다는 이유로 공소외 1은 발로 위 택시운전석 문짝을 1회 차고 그 문짝을 열은 다음 손으로 피해자의 목을 1회 치고, 2는 발로 위 택시 앞 본네트를 수회차고, 피고인은 발로 위 택시 조수석 문짝을 수회 찼으며, 공소외 3주식회사 관리과장인 피해자 2가 이를 만류하자 피고인과 공소외 1은 피해자 2의 멱살을잡고 공소외 1은 피해자 2의 허리를 1회 차고 공소외 2는 이에 가세함으로써 위 택시에 수리비 125,000원 상당이 소요되는 손해를 가하고 피해자 2에게 약 3주간의 치료를 요하는 요부염좌상을 가한 사실을 인정한 1심판결을 정당하다 하여 유지하고 있다.

2. According to the evidence of employment of the first instance court maintained by the court below based on the records (in particular, the prosecutor of the first instance court and the record of the assistant judicial police officer's protocol), since the defendant can recognize the fact that he gave an even even the chief sentence of the taxi driven by the victim 1, such as the first instance trial, the part denying this is groundless.

However, as to the part that the defendant committed assault against the victim 2 in collaboration with the non-indicted 1 and 2, the defendant's testimony contents of the victim 2, non-indicted 4, and 5 in the first instance court, which are evidence of the first instance court's employment of the court of first instance as to this part, and the prosecutor of the above person and each content of the interrogation protocol and statement prepared by the assistant judicial police officer, etc. are examined as follows, it cannot be said that the defendant's credibility is weak because it is contradictory to or inconsistent before and after each other

The victim 2, Nonindicted 4, and 5 made a statement to the effect that it conforms to the original adjudication at the time of the first instance trial. However, the police officer stated that the victim 2 did not open to the public by assaulting the Defendant, etc., and that the Defendant et al.’s Articles 1 and 2 of the Military Service Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da11448, Apr. 1, 2006) are open to the police station by making it unreasonable for the Defendant et al. to take on the part of the police station, and that the Defendants did not want to take on the taxi (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 206Da114449, Apr. 2, 200). However, the Defendants did not have any other assault except for those 1, 207Da15729, Apr. 1, 201; 2006Du15444, Apr. 1, 2006).

Rather, according to the testimony of the witness of the first instance court, Nonindicted 1, 2, the Defendants, a driver of the Youngjin Transportation Co., Ltd., set a taxi driven by the victim 1, a driver of Nonindicted 3 Co., Ltd., and paid trial expenses, Nonindicted 4, 5, and victim 2, etc., who were forced by one of the Nonindicted 1 and 2, were also found to have committed an assault against the Defendant while forced by one of them by one of them, and the Defendant, who was separated from one of them, was forced by one of them. As such, Nonindicted 4, 5, and 2, including Nonindicted 1, 2, and the victim, were tried by one of the Defendants, and were forced by one of them. Thus, it is difficult to accept that the Defendants, such as Nonindicted 4, etc. unilaterally committed an assault to several persons, including the victim 1, 2, etc., and the victim 2, were the victim and the victim 2.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the judgment of the value of evidence against the victim 2, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by the evidence cooking, and it is reasonable to discuss this point.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)