On January 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 30:01:30, the Defendant: (b) at the house of the victim A (n, **) (n, * *) who is the front wife of the Defendant on the floor of the Defendant ** * * * * * * * 3) on the ground that the victim of ordinary bed of rice was disregarding himself by being able to string him; (b) opened a gate door from the victim before about 1 year and 6 months; and (c) went through this night from the victim after entering the gate door door and going to string. “I see the math of Ma,” if the victim prevents the victim from being her hand, I am "we swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe swe s.

As a result, the defendant carried dangerous articles and inflicted injury on the victim, such as a 5-day cage cage cage cages, etc.

2. Determination

The defendant asserts that there was no injury on the part of the victim because he did not know about the house of the victim at the time of the case.

The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the finding of guilt must be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010).

First of all, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the victim was injured by a group of persons at the time and place stated in the facts charged can be recognized.

Next, we examine whether or not the defendant inflicts bodily injury on the victim.

In line with this evidence, "the offender at the time of the instant case was opened as the key to the victim's body, and "packer" was micked with the victim's body and 30 minutes. The victim's home key was used, and the victim's home key was used in light of the same fact as the defendant, such as voice, clothes, and kids, etc., the victim was the defendant. The victim's statements to the purport that "the victim's statement was made and the victim's birth was made from the victim's body. However, the court has the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court: ① even according to the victim's statement, it is not the victim's oral confirmation of the victim's face accurately; ② the victim's assaulted himself for about 1 hour and 30 minutes at the time of the Defendant's front drinking and drinking.* The victim's macker's personal credibility on the date when the victim was made to the extent that the victim's hand was not sealed.

In addition, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant had been in his own house and his mother, and the details of the Defendant’s transportation cards on the day of the instant case (the investigation record 37,38 pages) and the result of the communication confirmation data reply, the Defendant and the victim (the investigation record 75 pages),******** * even after the divorce, there was no special dispute or conflict around January 25, 2015, including that the victim got back to the Defendant on the same day.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to view that the facts charged in this case, which the defendant injured the victim, was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

Jurors's verdict

○ "guilty": Ten persons.

00 Not guilty: Seven persons (the jury in the unanimous jury).

Judge Cho Jae-han

Judges Lee Sung-sung