(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.07.10 2016고정501

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.07.10 2016고정501

폭행

Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. On March 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) 09:50 on March 16, 2016, the Defendant: (b) was protruding the opening of the victim D (76 tax) located in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, for the reason that the situation of ordinary land boundary is prone, and the opening of the victim is prone; (c) on the other hand, the Defendant abused the victim on the ground that the victim was duplicated.

2. The evidence that corresponds to the facts charged lies in the statements of the injured party D in this court and in the investigative agency and in this court of E, a witness, and the fact that the accused and the injured party became aware of the peace is indirectly supported by the facts charged.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, D and E’s statement to the effect that the Defendant committed an assault against D on the date and time indicated in the facts charged is difficult to believe, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed an assault against D on the date and time indicated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

A. D, in an investigative agency and this court, “Around 09:50 on March 16, 2016, the opening of the dog was obstructed, and therefore, D was faced with the opening of the Defendant, and as a result, the Defendant was able to have a stone.

At the time, the defendant did not affix a photo.

“A statement was made to the effect that “E visited D’s house at the same time” in this court, and “E visited D’s house to see at the same time, but this study examines that D’s house was frighted to D, and D’s house was frighted to D, and it was frighted by D.

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

B. On the other hand, the Defendant consistently denied the Defendant’s crime of having taken the victim’s house at the time of this court’s investigation agency’s filing of the charge until this court’s filing of the charge. However, the Defendant consistently denied the Defendant’s filing of the victim’s house and photo.

(c)

However, there is a problem.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 영동지원 2019.01.31 2018고정31

-전주지방법원 2018.03.29 2017고단1800

-서울남부지방법원 2019.07.23 2018노1072

-대전지방법원 2020.12.03 2020고단1652

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.04.01 2015고정678