(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts charged on the ground that the statement of the police officer who was assaulted by the defendant directly by the defendant cannot be believed without permission, etc., and there is an error of mistake in fact-finding

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts charged against the defendant on the ground that there is an error of finding facts in violation of the logical rules and the empirical rules, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove facts in the court below's decision that there is no evidence to prove facts against the logical rules and the empirical rules.

1. The judgment of the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case and sentenced the defendant not guilty, and on the grounds thereof, the statement at the police station taking measures against the victim among various evidence submitted by the prosecutor is merely an abstract statement that the defendant takes a bath and took a riot at the time and place in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is insufficient to use it as direct evidence to acknowledge the defendant's act. The statement at the first hearing of the court of first instance held by the co-defendant 1 in the police at the second hearing of the court of first instance (the statement that the defendant 2 and the police officer took a riot together with the co-defendant 2 and 3 in the first hearing of the court of first instance is the statement that the defendant 2 and the police officer moved the police officer to the police officer, and it is difficult to believe that the defendant was unable to look at the police officer in light of the fact that there is no consistency in the records and the statements at the court of first instance after the police of the victim, and there is no consistency in the above statements in light of its reasoning.

2. However, it is difficult for the lower court to obtain the aforementioned evidence cooking.

According to the records, the court below's rejection of the victim's seat, response to measures, etc. shall not be dismissed without any special reason, as the compulsory police officers themselves, who were in charge of security duties at the site of this case and were assaulted by the defendant and others, and they experienced directly in the course of performing their official duties.

Furthermore, even if the defendant's statement was examined, it is hard to view that the defendant's statement was not carried out by the police officer's first instance court's second instance court's prosecutor's office, and that the defendant's statement was not carried out by the defendant's second instance court's second instance prosecutor's office's body, and that the defendant's second instance prosecutor's office's body was not carried out by the defendant's second instance court's second instance prosecutor's office's second instance prosecutor's office's second instance prosecutor's office's office's second instance prosecutor's office's office's second instance prosecutor's office's office's second instance prosecutor's office's office's second instance prosecutor's office's office's second instance prosecutor's office's office's second instance prosecutor's office's office's second instance prosecutor's office's office's second instance prosecutor's office's office's second instance prosecutor's office's office's office's second instance.

3. While the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts in a criminal trial are based on the free evaluation of a fact-finding court, it is not possible to allow the preparation of evidence or fact-finding contrary to logical and empirical rules by determining objectivity and rationality.

The court below decided that the defendant's statement of the above letter of statement cannot be believed to be the police officer who was assaulted directly by the other defendant due to the defendant's change in the defendant's lawsuit, and that there was no evidence to prove the facts charged against the defendant by adding other reasons as stated in the court below. Thus, it is difficult to avoid criticism that the court below erred in fact-finding due to evidence preparation contrary to the logical rules and the empirical rules. The ground for appeal is with merit.

4. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is accepted, and the case is reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)