logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 상주지원 2016.04.19 2015고정242
상해
Text

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. On September 8, 2015, around 13:50 on September 8, 2015, Defendant B assaulted on two occasions the part of the victim’s left side side part, the left side part, and the part of the trade side part of the victim’s blue with the blue in the construction site of the new construction site with the victim A who is the construction business operator and the construction cost.

B. Defendant A, at the same time and place as the above paragraph, was set up against the victim B in both hands and pushed the victim, and got the victim over the floor, thereby causing the victim to suffer bodily injury, such as the right shoulder and the upper arms that require treatment for about 14 days.

2. Determination:

A. As to the facts charged of this case, the defendant A was assaulted by the defendant B at the time, but he did not go beyond the defendant B, and the defendant B was faced with the defendant's own will. The defendant B asserted that his hand was in contact with the defendant A, but there was no assault by the defendant A, but rather, the defendant A suffered injury because he was faced with the suspect by the defendant A.

The argument is asserted.

B. Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to prove the Defendants’ conviction, the evidence to clarify the truth of the instant crime was present at the scene at the time, if the prosecutor excluded the Defendants’ statements that he was the victim and did not exercise the other party’s tangible power.

H’s statement is in full.

In this regard, H first stated that the facts charged by Defendant A were not true at the time that Defendant A did not appear to go beyond the floor while Defendant B was faced with the interest of Defendant B.

In the end, H did not directly witness the Defendant A's crime, and it is whether the Defendant B was able to go beyond the floor while the Defendant B was faced with the suspect or not, like Defendant A's assertion.

arrow