logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.09.26 2013고단3881
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a national of Cambodia, and around 11:55 on May 27, 2013, the Defendant discovered that the Defendant’s wife D and the Defendant are in the Seoul Station where the Defendant was located in the Jung-gu Seoul Central District, Jung-gu, Seoul. Around 122, the Defendant opened a part of the wall that requires medical treatment for about 14 days to the victim, with the victim’s wife D and the Defendant, while walking on the platform, while walking along with the victim, while walking on the platform, the Defendant was faced with the victim.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). B.

However, in light of the relationship between D and the Defendant, the situation at the time, and the first report process, etc., as evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case, C, which was thought to have taken place together with the Defendant, one of his wife, at the time, cannot be excluded from the possibility that C made a false report to the police that “A person of Cambodia (the Defendant) of the same nationality presumed to have inflicted an injury on oneself,” in order to find the place where he had taken place. (C is found in the police station on the day of this case that “A was found to have taken the place on the day of this case by leaving the police station to have taken the place and taken the place on the day when the wife returned to the house,” and in particular, C appears to have avoided the receipt of the damage report and the preparation of the statement on the day of this case on the day when C took place).

arrow