특수상해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles) and the victim were in dispute between the defendant and the victim, the victim's injury appears to have occurred at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, and the fact that the commission of the crime was discovered at the scene of the crime, the victim's statement that the defendant was responsible for the head from the defendant was sufficiently reliable, but the court below rejected it and acquitted the defendant.
2. The court below held that ① the statement of the victim was not consistent in various respects, including the course of the crime and method and place of the crime; ② The victim stated that the victim was at the court of the court below, in particular, that the victim left the victim’s head from the inside of the office of human resources and office, and that the wall door, which was designated as the tool of the crime, was found in the dubur park adjacent to the human resources office rather than the structural dubur. ③ The victim stated that the defendant was at the time when the victim was taken a cell phone with the cell phone, and that the victim got the victim’s head by using the wall that was located on the floor with the left hand while the victim was taken, and that the defendant was not natural as well as that the victim was deprived of his left hand in the situation where the cell phone was used, ④ the victim was stated in the investigative agency and the head of the wall in the court of the court of the court of the court but it was hard to understand that the victim was at the time of the change of the victim’s body and the victim’s body.