logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.08.12 2013고정2769
상해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant appears to be a clerical error in the facts charged on August 16, 2013.

Around 20:00, the victim E (the 64 years of age) joined the remaining line where drinking alcohol is performed, and the victim after drinking alcohol was called the Defendant to calculate the drinking value. Accordingly, the victim’s name, shoulder, etc. was put on a scopical base that requires treatment for about 10 days by drinking alcohol when 5-6 times the victim’s length, shoulder, etc. was 5-6.

2. The victim stated at the police that he had 5 to 6 the scam, shoulder, scam, etc. from the Defendant. However, in this court, the victim suffered injury by making a statement to the effect that he did not have any assault from the Defendant at first, and that he did not have any scam, shoulder, etc., as in the facts charged, and that he did not have any scam, scam, etc., and that scam with the hand floor, and

A statement was made to deny the issuance of a medical certificate after receiving treatment.

(However, according to the fact-finding inquiry reply letter with Franchisium, it is recognized that the victim had been diagnosed on August 20, 2013, as stated in the injury diagnosis letter submitted as evidence, and received a diagnosis and received a diagnosis.) Meanwhile, G, who is the business owner and witness of the crime place of this case, was approaching the police at the workplace of the crime place of this case, that he would drink, and the victim would drink, and first approach the police to calculate the drinking value, thereby allowing the defendant to have a self-esteem of “the victim was not the victim,” and that he did not assault the victim.

(Investigation Record 7 pages) Ultimately, in this case where the statements of the victim, the only direct evidence of the crime, are inconsistent and are contrary to witness statements, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant used the victim’s statements at the police station only, and how the defendant used to assault the victim regardless of the method and degree of the crime.

arrow