logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.05.31 2012노3730
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged without assaulting the victims is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The part of the victim’s assault against the victim E (In Incheon District Court Decision 2012DaMa10499) stated consistently that when the victim undergoes the Defendant’s assault against the Defendant’s wife H from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the Defendant was able to take his/her shoulder while taking the Defendant’s bath to the Defendant’s wife and was pushed down his/her chest. Although the victim made a somewhat certain statement about the place where the act occurred, it cannot be deemed that the victim’s statement has no credibility since it consistently made a statement about the place where the act occurred.

In addition, the defendant stated that the police did not put the shoulder of the victim, but he was tightly shouldered by the body of the victim, and that he was faced with the pipe while the victim was faced with the back ring. H made a statement at the police that the defendant was facing the body of the victim and was faced with the back ringer. Even according to the above statement, even according to the above statement, the defendant was judged to have pushed the victim's body close to the victim's body, and the victim was over the victim's body. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the defendant's statement was completely inconsistent with the victim's above statement.

Therefore, there is no error of misconception of facts in finding the guilty of this part of the facts charged by macroscopic evidence including the statement of the victim.

B. The victim F’s credibility of the victim F’s statement in the victim F’s assault part against the victim F (Jacheon District Court Branch Decision 2012Ma12466) (1) stated that the victim was shotly killed in the complaint, brupted by the Defendant, and brupted twice, and the Defendant tried to deprive the victim of the brue box in the first investigation into the police.

arrow