1. In full view of the evidences, the court below acknowledged that the defendant jointly with the non-indicted 1 on March 31, 1991, when the non-indicted 2, who was driven by the defendant, etc., after drinking at the Dsco clubs 376-9 located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 22, 191, 22:0, after drinking at the Dsco clubs located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, 376, the defendant and the non-indicted 1, and the non-indicted 3 walked out of the Dong office and walked out of the Dong office. The victim 1 (ma, 29 years old), who is an employee of the Dong office, demanded a drinking value. Accordingly, the defendant 2, 3 times the face part in the new construction construction construction site of the neighboring building, and the victim 1 was injured by the victim 2 (ma, 27 years old, and 1 year old) and 21 days away from the victim 1's face part 2, such as the victim 2-day p.

2. However, the Defendant denies the above crime from the police investigation to the court of the original trial. Among the trial evidence of the original trial, direct evidence supporting the original trial is only the victim 1, and the remainder is all circumstantial evidence, and the victim 1’s statement cannot be deemed as weak credibility as seen below.

First, at the time of the police investigation following the accident of this case, the victim 1 stated to the effect that the victim 2, who is an employee such as the victim 1, was injured by the victim 2. The victim 1 and the victim 2, who was investigated with the victim 1, did not have assaulted the victim 1, and the victim 1 did not have assaulted the victim 1, and the victim 2, who was investigated with the victim 1, was written at the site and 1, and the victim 2 young 2, who cited the steel poppy and the steel m. but used the steel poppy, i.e., the young 1, who used the steel poppy, was able to see the victim's face with the poppy, and was able to see the victim 1. It is inconsistent with the victim 1's statement.

On the other hand, in the prosecutorial investigation, the point in which Nonindicted 1 was assaulted by poppy from Nonindicted 1 was later behind the packing straw in Sammi department store construction work site, and it was difficult to identify what was in one eye due to the lack of street lamps or other lighting in the surrounding area. However, it is not certain whether there was two persons at the time. However, it is different from the statement at the police station to the effect that Nonindicted 1 was aware of the existence of Nonindicted 1, and it was impossible to know who was in a certain place. However, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 1 used the iron poppy in the police and the prosecutorial office, it is consistent that Nonindicted 3 was the principal and Nonindicted 32, and Nonindicted 3 was made a statement in the same purport in the prosecutorial office and the first trial court, there is no credibility in the prosecutorial statement by the victim 2.

Second, at the time of prosecutorial investigation, the victim 1 was the construction site where the witness was constructing a new building at the time when the witness passed, and entered India to the extent of 3,4 meters from the packaging end car, and the defendant 1 cited the iron poppy and string the body of the left eye and the body of the body of the body of the victim 1. The victim 1 was able to clearly distinguish the defendant's face, and the victim 1 and the victim 3 showed that he was in the vicinity of the victim 1 and the victim 1 and the victim 3 appeared to have been in front of the body of the victim 2, while the police officer appeared to have been going up to the packing end, and the victim 2 got out of the body of the victim 2.

However, the above statements are contradictory to the above statements made by the police of the victim himself/herself and the victim 2 or the statements made by the non-indicted 1 and 3, and since the above prosecutor's statement was made before the prosecutor's office after the prosecution of this case, the witness's summons was not complied with by the court after the prosecution of this case, and there was no opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine the contents of the above statements in light of the fact that the witness did not comply with the summons of the court

As a result, the judgment of the court below is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.