상해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
As witnesses of the summary of the grounds for appeal are stated in the witness, the defendant did not have any relation to the victim, and even if the victim was her own seated, the court below convicted the defendant of the charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts.
With respect to the date and time of the crime stated in the indictment at the trial for the ex officio judgment, the prosecutor applied for the permission to change the indictment to the effect that “Defendant is changed to “Defendant on June 1, 2013” on June 1, 2013, and this court changed the subject of adjudication by permitting the change of indictment, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.
In light of the contents of the first instance court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, if there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or if it is not deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court by the time the first instance court was concluded in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time the argument was concluded, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance court’s judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of a
(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1672 delivered on October 22, 1991, 94Do1545 delivered on November 25, 1994, 96Do2461 delivered on December 6, 1996, and 2005Do130 delivered on May 26, 2005, etc.). Specific judgment of the court below and the trial court are legitimate.