The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment shall be published.

C did not have any physical contact between C and D due to protein, and there was no physical contact between C and D.

Therefore, the Defendant, who testified to the same purport, did not perjury by making a false statement contrary to his memory. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

Around 14:00 on May 12, 2016, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the Defendant’s injury case against Changwon District Court Jinyang Branch 202, Jinju Branch 203, Jinju Branch 303, the said court’s Jinju Branch 2015Da5477, the Defendant testified to the effect that C did not have any physical contact between C and D.

However, at around 13:45 on May 29, 2015, C took the face of D in the front corridor No. 101, 409, Jinju-si, E Apartment 101, 409, as seen earlier by the Defendant, and took the two descendants of D so avoided.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the evidence and the final judgment of the court below No. 2015, 547.

C. Judgment of the court below

The direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case is limited to D's testimony, which is the victim of the injury to C in the above case, and the facts acknowledged in the final criminal judgment, barring any special circumstances. However, if it is acknowledged that it is difficult to adopt the judgment of facts in the final criminal judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the relevant trial in question, it may be rejected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7655, Dec. 8, 2005). In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and duly investigated by the court below and the trial court, D's testimony is difficult to believe that it has no credibility, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in this case. Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

① The situation before the occurrence of the instant case

D는 전세금 문제로, 서울에서 버스를 타고 진주시로 내려와 이 사건 발생 당일인 2015. 5. 29. 00:10경 피고인과 C(이하 '피고인 부부'라 한다)의 위 아파트로 찾아가 만나자는 요구를 하였고, 이에 피고인 부부는 당일 오전 10시경 진주시 F시장 2층 소재 G다방에서 D를 만났다. D(무술 3단)는 피고인 부부와 대화하던 중, 그 자리에서 테이블 위에 놓인 컵과 컵받침을 맨손으로 내리쳐 깨뜨리고, 피고인 부부에게 심한 욕설을 퍼부었다. C는 112에 신고하여 경찰 2명이 출동하였고, 이에 위 사태가 일단락되었다. 위 다방의 주인인 원심 증인 H은 당시 D가 피고인 부부에게 말로 할 수 없는 심한 욕을 계속하였고, 이에 C는 욕설도 전혀 하지 않았을 뿐만 아니라, "말로 하세, 말로 하세 "하며 달랠 뿐 한마디 말도 못하였다고 진술하였다.

Since then, the defendant couple's husband and wife returned to the above apartment that is his residence. D, which was coming from the above multi-sections, continued to open the door door, and continuously divided the door door and level, and the defendant reported it again to 112. D returned to the above apartment again by the police who was dispatched, and the defendant returned to the above apartment again, and the head of the management office examined D upon the request of the head of the apartment management office for assistance. D returned to the above apartment management office, and even after the head of the management office returned to the above apartment, D did not leave before the above apartment site (the period of money in front of the above apartment site reaches about two hours);

② Circumstances at the time of occurrence of the instant case

With respect to the situation at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, D was waiting for the Defendant’s husband and wife before the present official, D opened the said apartment door, demanded a conversation by inserting the front door, and prevented the front door from shutting down due to the gap in the open door of the present official. It stated that C was fright next to the present official, and frighting and frighting through the front door. However, C did not directly respond to D’s dangerous behavior from the above multiples and did not request the police or the management office to assist (or did not take any particular response despite D’s strong desire at the same time) and C (in the event that the upper body alone was frighter than the lower body, it seems difficult to unilaterally make it difficult for the lower court to unilaterally make it difficult for C (in the situation of assault to make it difficult for the lower body to unilaterally take advantage of its body more than 1963 years old and lower body than 3 years old and lower body than 1963 years old.

It is consistently stated that C has changed the gap between the above management entity and D has changed into the front door, and at that time, D has consistently opened the front door and added a mountain fry in front of the door.

③ The form of the instant act was as follows: C gets her her her her bage with her flag, her her bage with her her flag, and her flaged with her her flag by hand; C her head was faced with 2 to 3 times on cement wall; C continued her face with drinking and hand, etc. 4 to 5 times; and as a result, C her flag caused her flag with her face with her flag, etc.; C her flag with her face with her flag and hand, etc.; C her flaged with her flag, with her head disturbing, showing that her flag, showing that her flag was disturbed

However, it is difficult to believe, in light of the empirical rule, that D (a Dong stated that he/she himself/herself had engaged in Taekwondo, tenniss and golf, etc.) was unilaterally engaged in flabing and selling flabing unilaterally from C to the extent that he/she would have reached the age of 80, and that he/she was flabing with flabing to the extent that he/she would have committed flabing.

In addition, D stated that, although it was 40,000 won at the time of the attack from C, there was no evidence to acknowledge it, and only claimed 1.5 million won for medical expenses including various minor expenses at the time of the suit, such as lease deposit, etc., Seoul Central District Court 2015Kadan11658, Seoul Central District Court 2015Kadan1658, and did not claim for repair expenses. In this regard, D's above statement is difficult to believe.

On the issue of whether C takes photographs of friendly mountain (criminal), which had been on the front door, the police officer confirmed D, while D was given testimony when D had not taken the photo at first, the presiding judge did not have his memory again, and the presiding judge mentioned a substitute examination with the police officer at the second time, but did not have memory again, and 'I do not have any important memory?', the prosecutor's examination found D again at the time of the examination. However, the presiding judge reversed that D's photograph was insufficient to accurately memory. Although the photograph was very important evidence in the investigation and trial, it is difficult to believe that D's statement that it was not important, and that it was again re-written at the same time.

(4) Degree of injury D

D asserts that the grandchildren, etc. that the fingers of the fingers caused by C’s assault were deprived of their fingers. However, the fact that the fingers were deprived is nothing more than the argument of D himself, and there is no direct evidence to acknowledge it. On the date of the occurrence of the instant case, the content of the opinion written by D is that “the name of the sick: 5 balance impressions, opinion: Omissions: Hashed: Hashed: Hashed’s opinion, etc.: - Prosecutor (MI) proves that the patient was deadly corrected directly, and was dead,” and the injury written by the Council of the Department of Research and Medical Sciences on June 3, 2015, also was written in the injury diagnosis document prepared by the Council of the Department of Research and Medical Sciences, and that the 5 fingers of the 5 fingers in the form of a hole (the patient’s statement) is nothing more than the fact that D’s statement was made directly at the time of the occurrence of the instant case (the diagnosis document, etc.).

D The testimony was made by the court at the time of the testimony at the court of the trial, that the statement was left down within the police. However, at the time of the testimony at the court of the trial, it is not consistent because the statement was made by the police first and reported to the police. According to the photographs taken by the police at the time of the dispatch of the police, it is not confirmed that the loss was abandoned, but it is not confirmed that the state was abandoned, such as D's assertion.

According to the above photographs, the flick State in D's flicks appear and the flick State shows its appearance. However, rather than the fact that D's flicked C had a strong impact on D's flicks to the extent that D's flicks would escape from the nearest distance to flick C, it is more consistent with the rule of experience to deem D's flicking of the instant flicks or C's flicks at the time when D flicks off the World Cup in the immediately preceding d's

In addition, it is difficult to believe that D's statement that D's her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her his her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her s

⑤ In other circumstances, C at the time of testimony at the trial, he/she made a statement that he/she had a verbal violence, such as 'C', 'C', fch bitch bitch bitch chch fch. However, C has consistently made a statement that he/she did not have any desire, and C does not have any specific response to D's h's h's d's h's h's h's h's h's h's h's h', and it is difficult to believe that C

D filed a claim of KRW 36.9 million in total in a lawsuit claiming the above lease deposit, etc. against the Defendant couple, and most of the claims were dismissed, and won was winning only 2090,000 won, and thereafter the appeal was withdrawn. The above winning amount also constitutes a charge of assaulting D and inflicting four weeks injury (Jinwon District Court Jinwon Branch Decision 2015No. 547). The conclusion is that the above winning amount is only the medical expenses and consolation money under the criminal facts (Jinwon District Court Jinju Branch Decision 2015No.

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

The summary of the facts charged in this case is the same as that of Article 2-1(a) and Article 2-2-3(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, on the ground that there is no proof of crime as seen in Article 325(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Gindo-young

Judge Lee Jin-hun