2016 Highest 1681 Highest Mactrine, Mactrine

Z (the 95-years, South) students,

Housing Egresponding

Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong

(Court) Full-time Prosecutor (Court Prosecution) and Lee Jong-won (Court Trial)

Attorney Park Do-young

October 19, 2016

Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and 2 months, respectively, for the crimes of the judgment of the defendant 1 as to the crimes

Criminal History Office

On July 22, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group. Intimidation with deadly weapons, etc.), etc. at the Suwon District Court (a group. Intimidation), and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 30, 2014;

On March 2, 2014, the Defendant filed a complaint with the purport that “A wishes to legally punish A, on the ground that he/she is assaulted by A on one occasion his/her face, and walked on one occasion, from the drinking house located at a distance of 01:30 on February 11, 2014.”

However, in fact, the defendant unilaterally assaulted A and suffered violence from A.

Nevertheless, for the purpose of having criminal punishment imposed upon the Defendant, the Defendant filed a false complaint and brought a false complaint against A.

2. A perjury;

At around 15:40 on August 18, 2014, the Defendant appeared at the court room No. 410 of Suwon District Court 80, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 201, and testified after having been sworn as a witness of the above defendant's injury case to A, which is being tried by the judge B, as a witness of the court, the prosecutor's "at the time, the Defendant assaulted specifically the witness at the time," and "at the time, the Defendant was spawd and spad with each other in his hand, and the shoulder was spad and spad with with each other, with his hand."

However, in fact, the defendant unilaterally assaulted A and suffered violence from A.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Article 156 (False Accusation) of the Criminal Act, Article 152 (1) (Perjury) of the Criminal Act, and each choice of imprisonment with prison labor.

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Defendant's assertion

In the process of the instant vision by the Defendant and the victim, the flaps were flabed with each other, and the flab was 1st by hand from the victim, and the Defendant’s flab was flabed with the Defendant’s flab. The Defendant’s flab with the Defendant’s flab. The Defendant’s flab was flad with the Defendant’s flab, and the Defendant’s f

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is deemed sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the instant criminal facts in light of the aforementioned evidence duly examined and adopted by a member, and all the evidence revealed in the records, and thus, it is not acceptable to accept the Defendant’s above assertion.

A. The instant case is a key issue whether the Defendant and the victim unilaterally committed an assault on the part of the Defendant and the victim at the scene of vision. It seems that there is no third party involved in the process of assault and trial in addition to the Defendant and the victim. Therefore, it is very small for the Defendant to be assessed as having been aware of the direct party of the instant case, (in the case of perjury), or as having filed a false accusation against the Defendant and the victim, to be evaluated as having been accused of the objective truth rather than the objective truth (in the case of accusation).

B. The victim consistently and consistent not only to the investigation process of the injury case against himself, but also to this court, stated that he did not assault the Defendant, spathing spathing, and spathing his face, and the Defendant used his face in drinking, and the Defendant continued to face his face.

On the other hand, in the case of the defendant, beyond being frightened in the investigation process and legal testimony of the above case, only fluently fluently fluently fly, and only fluent fly fly fly fly fly fly fly, and how the victim was faced with. In addition, even though the defendant suffered from an injury such as a fluent fykeel and a brut fly brush in the thale of the 3 weeks of treatment on the day of the case or following the day of the case (limited to the injury that may cause a big flusent in daily life), there is no trace of receiving hospital treatment on February 14, 200, while the victim was issued on March 2, 200, it is deemed that the victim’s assaulted to the extent that flagly fly fly fly, and that it was a response to the victim’s compensation for damages.

In addition, in the case of C’s testimony submitted as core evidence that the Defendant was assaulted by the victim as above, the Defendant and the victim are all the persons to a certain extent (which seems not to seriously impede the conclusion of the instant case that is more favorable to the Defendant and the victim), and the Defendant and the victim appeared to have been present from the beginning to the end, but the Defendant did not specifically memory how the Defendant was faced with the Defendant’s face or how the victim was faced with the Defendant.

In light of C’s testimony, it is difficult to regard C as an ordinary behavior as a well-known act by both the Defendant and the victim, such as the fact that C made a statement only in the manner that the victim was at the time of the fighting, and that it was flick at the time of the fighting, and that it was difficult to regard C as an attacking act as a well-known act as the victim, and that the victim was at the early investigation stage of the police, and the Defendant was unable to memory C at the time of the fighting, and became a witness at the later time (in light of C’s testimony that, after the fighting was completed, the Defendant and the victim were talked with C as the parking lot, and that there was two talks about C to find the Defendant and the victim as the parking lot, it is difficult to support the credibility of the Defendant’s statement.

Therefore, the victim's statement as the victim of injury is specific and consistent since the beginning of the case, while the defendant's statement is not specific and contradictory to other evidence, so it is inevitable to keep credibility more in the victim's statement. Also, in light of the victim's fact-finding or injury diagnosis statement immediately after the case, the victim's statement is considered as the victim's statement.

C. Meanwhile, with respect to whether the victim abused and injured the Defendant, the Suwon District Court 2014 - - - 2014 - - 2014 - The verdict became final and conclusive of innocence.

Inasmuch as the facts already established in the criminal judgment as to the same facts are valuable evidence, the facts inconsistent with the facts cannot be acknowledged unless there are special circumstances that are deemed difficult to adopt the judgment on the facts in the criminal trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da39215, Nov. 12, 1995; 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 1999). Furthermore, the evidence is high, and the degree of the conviction formation for the conviction in the criminal trial is to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require it to be beyond 10, and rejection by causing 10, without reasonable grounds that have probative value, goes beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. 20, supra, the reasonable doubt in this context should be 10, 200, and 10,000,000 square meters based on logical and empirical rules, which are favorable to the defendant (see, 20,001).

D. The testimony of D was submitted from this court as evidence to doubt the rationality of the reasons for the judgment stated in the above judgment, and E appears to be materials that could affect the fact-finding of the above judgment in the purport that “The assault and fighting of the Defendant and the victim had already been terminated before the witness appeared, and thus the accurate defendant could not be seen as having been at the time of the victim.”

However, D, along with C, observed the site of the case in which smoking tobacco was sent in front of the toilet from the beginning, but D, the statement that the two fightings were blicked by the victim while fighting with the Defendant, and the victim was blick and flicked later, and that C was aware of his fighting.

In addition, E’s testimony takes place first from the toilet, and the victim’s face was left behind due to dispute, and the victim’s face was left behind. It is not much inconsistent with the victim’s statement purport that Defendant’s assault continued to be exposed to the victim’s right after the instant assault took place, and if the victim was not one of the two violences to the extent that the victim was satisfed and satisfed, but the victim was a type of violence satisfing the victim’s preemptively, it cannot be ruled out that it does not constitute a specific Defendant’s assault. Thus, the statement of the part of witnessing the scene after the instant assault does not seriously impede the recognition of credibility as a witness to support the Defendant’s assault.

마 . 그밖에 폭행 당일 피해자의 신고가 있었음을 안 피고인이 피해자에게 전화를 걸 어 녹취한 대화내용에 의하면 피해자 스스로 ' 서로 치고 박고 싸웠어도 ' 라고 인정하는 부분이 나온다는 사정을 피해자의 폭행 사실을 뒷받침하는 자료라고 주장하나 , 전화통 화내용 중 극히 짧은 일부분만 녹취가 된 경위에 대한 의심은 별론으로 하고 , 위 녹취 록 앞부분에는 ' 너도 나 때리고 막 그랬잖아 ? 그럼 서로 치고 박고 싸운 거지 ' 라는 피 고인의 질문에 대해 ' 아니 ~ ~ ' 하고 피해자가 답한 내용도 있어 , 위 부분 대화내용만을 가지고 피해자 스스로 쌍방폭행을 인정했다고 말하기도 부족하므로 , 이 역시 위 확정 판결의 사실인정에 대한 합리성을 의심할 자료로 삼기 어렵다 .

Reasons for sentencing

1. Sentencing and each sentencing criteria for a high-ranking police officer;

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

Type 1 (General Dismissal) Basic Area (from 6 months to 2 years)

Type 1 (General Perjury) Basic Area (from June to June)

【Special Convicted Persons】

None

2. Determination of sentence;

Although the defendant assaulted the victim for 35 days and inflicted an injury upon the victim that requires medical treatment, he/she would be subject to criminal liability due to his/her act, he/she also assaulted himself/herself and falsely commits a crime, and further, he/she did not commit a serious crime in court, and sentenced him/her to a punishment.

Judge Go Il-il