폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant created a risk of physical damage to the victim G in close vicinity while exercising physical damage to F along with B and C, and that the Defendant sustained the injury by continuing an attack even though it could have predicted such risk, and thus, the Defendant is liable for the injury caused by negligence.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. On October 27, 2015, the Defendant, B, and C of the instant facts charged (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”) neglected to follow the Defendant’s body in the victim G (V, 68 years old) who was able to walk up the Defendant et al., and neglected to follow the Defendant’s duty of care to prevent the said victim from getting out or getting out of the Defendant, while the Defendant and C instructed the Defendant to pushed up the F, and the Defendant and C got out of the F in the process of pushing up the F by hand.
As a result, the defendant et al. committed by negligence the injury to the victim, such as the pressure duplicating No. 1 of the 6 weeks of treatment.
B. The lower court’s judgment should be based on the evidence of probative value, which has the burden of proving the criminal facts charged in a criminal trial, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for conviction by the public prosecutor, and that the conviction is true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt for guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the interest of the Defendant. According to the records, the victim is only found to have been committed due to physical contact with F, and the victim is beyond the victim.