폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is consistent with the investigation agency, and the victim E consistently stated that the defendant Eul was sealed by the defendant Eul, and that he was sealed by the shoulder part of the defendant Eul at the time, and that he was sealed by the defendant Eul at the time, and it was reliable in the above statement because Eul was also sealed by the defendants, G was witnessing these circumstances and consistent with the victim's statement; E was conducted an injury diagnosis on both sides of the following day of the crime of this case; the defendants supported by the J pastor; the defendants were allowed to leave the D church without permission for the purpose of obstructing the awareness of taking office of the I wood company supported by Eul at the time of the crime of this case; in full view of the circumstances at the time of the crime of this case, even if the facts charged of this case are fully recognized, the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendants.
2. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it with the benefit of the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009). Defendants have consistently denied the instant facts charged from an investigative agency.
In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the police of the victim E and the witness G in the court of the court below, there is a statement in the victim E and the witness G, and the witness G’s statement and injury diagnosis statement, which are consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, it is difficult to believe that each of the statements in E and G is difficult, and the injury diagnosis statement alone is sufficient to recognize the guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.