Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. On July 18, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) the Defendant, who is a taxi driver, committed assaulting the victim’s face by drinking while taking the victim’s face at the front of the Haak-gu Domp that was parked in the Haak-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, on the ground that the victim C (the 60-year-old and South-year-old) did not put up a taxi and passed her match without putting it into the taxi; (b) the Defendant continued to assault the victim’s face by drinking while taking the Haak-gu in front of the Domp that was driven by the Domp, which was in the vicinity of the victim’s report.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant stated in the court of the lower court that there was no assault by the Defendant in the vehicle in which the victim was in operation, but the Defendant stated in the court of the lower court that there was no assault by the Defendant in the vehicle in which the victim was in operation, and that the Defendant stated in the police that he was assaulted by the Defendant in the face of the Defendant after stopping the instant taxi at the time around the e box, which led to an assault by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s statement at the police station cannot be trusted as it is, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of the instant case, and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of the instant case under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. The burden of proof of the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial for the judgment of the trial court is the prosecutor, and the conviction is recognized.