beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On June 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 07:30 on June 24, 2015, and around 39 years old, sustained the victim’s arms, was pushed down, was pushed down, was pushed down, and was inflicted on the victim’s joint blood transfusion, etc. for about seven days on the ground that the victim was not able to recover from the Defendant’s wife; (b) on the other hand, the victim did not go against the Defendant’s wife’s wife; and (c) on the other hand, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, i.e., the victim’s joint blood transfusion, etc., requiring treatment for about seven days.
2. Determination
A. Among the facts charged in the instant case, there exists a protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by a judicial police officer, which corresponds to the part that the Defendant was in favor of and sealed by the victim. However, insofar as the Defendant consistently denies the facts charged from the date of the first trial, the Defendant did not recognize the contents of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the police officer. As such, there is no evidence to prove the facts charged (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5040 Decided June 24, 2010). Otherwise, there is no evidence to prove this part of the facts charged, and the victim testified that there is no person who gets in favor of or was in favor of the victim at the time of the instant trial.
There is no evidence to prove this part of the facts charged.
B. Next, we examine the part of the defendant's injury to the victim's coin by drinking.
A witness D, F's testimony and statement statement statement, a medical certificate of injury, and a victim D's cryp is proved as evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged.
However, in light of the following circumstances known from the documentary evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is difficult to believe that the testimony and each statement made by D and F are not reliable, and the medical certificate of injury and the photographs the victim noses are insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
1) D) Since E and the principal have vagabonds, the defendant is slick from dynasty.