상해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal E and F’s statements, etc., the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, although the defendant could have inflicted an injury on E, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. On May 12, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 10:30 on May 12, 2012, at the “D” lending store located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, the Defendant: (b) and the wife E (the age of 43) brought a divorce lawsuit; (c) made the victim’s chest and lebbbs with both hand and lebbs, and caused the victim to go beyond the victim, and caused the victim to go against the wall, and (d) caused the victim to go against with the wall, and caused the victim to go against with each other.
B. The judgment of the court below is not consistent with the E’s statement, and F.m. memory is not well-known.
Comprehensively taking account of the testimony that there are parts of witness or witness, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was injured as shown in the facts charged, and it was acquitted of the defendant on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
C. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the trial of the political party, namely, ① the Defendant consistently taken the E’s hand trees from the investigation stage, and stated that there is no confidential fact, ② the Defendant brought a lawsuit of divorce against the Defendant around March 2012, and the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assault was one of the causes of divorce. In light of the fact that, during the 18-year marriage period, the Defendant stated that there was no report to the police due to the Defendant’s assault (the 28th page of the trial record), there is no possibility that the Defendant made an exaggerated statement. ③ The F appears as a witness in the court of the court of the court below, and ③ the Defendant appeared as a witness, and the Defendant was unable to witness that the Defendant was faced with the wall, and that the Defendant was pushed back thereafter.