The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) The defendant (the factual errors);

As stated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not interfere with the normal performance of duties concerning the safety management of a State agency by putting a false phone to the 119th term "the Defendant installed explosives in the orchard or in the viewing of water sources".

(b) An inspection;

The sentencing of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

① At around 14:34 on October 29, 2009, the Defendant: (a) was released from the name of the subscriber (USIM) at the residence of D Apartment 303, 702, 303, 702, and the caller’s cell phone (Mo de name: SKY YIM-S240K, and one name monphone) in the direction-to-Eup of the local community in e-mail.

In 119, the actual telephone number of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency reported the false fact that "explosive explosives were installed in the water station, and explosives were installed in the water station," and thereby interfered with the normal performance of duties concerning the safety management of the State agency by using deceptive means by making the police specialty explosives detection team, the police station under the jurisdiction of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, the criminal police station under the jurisdiction, the personnel of the 112 sponse, and the personnel of the jurisdictional district, etc. dispatched the dispatch to the water station and controlled the access to the water station building and search the inside and outside of the building.

On November 11, 2009, the Defendant, at around 11:29, posted a telephone to the situation room of the foregoing dwelling, thereby hindering the normal performance of duties in relation to the safety management of State agencies by deceptive means by reporting false information to the viewing that “I installed explosives to the viewing although there was no installation of explosives in the view room located in the 11111 of the Suwon-gu hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on hand-on,”

③ On December 2, 2009, the Defendant, at around 10:11, at the above residential area, installed explosives to view the water sources without a telephone call at the above flood control room in the above residential area; on the contrary, it was known that there was a serious danger within the water sources; on the contrary, the Defendant reported the false content that the Defendant installed explosives to view the water sources; and on the other hand, reported the Seoul Special Police Agency’s explosives detection team, the competent police station, the criminal police station, the 112 units, and the competent district personnel called the police station, to control the access to the water sources and to search the inside and outside of the building, thereby hindering the State agency’s normal performance of duties concerning the safety control of the State agency by using a deceptive scheme. On January 22, 2010, the Defendant, at around 19:58, at the above residential area, reported the installation of the explosives to view the water sources, and reported the installation of the explosives to the Seoul Special Police Agency outside the jurisdiction of the Seoul Special Police Agency.

The court below found all of the facts charged in this case guilty by taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

3. Judgment of the court below

As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, there are the witness E, F’s statement, the prosecutor’s office and police’s statement of G, the prosecutor’s protocol of the prosecution against H, the prosecutor’s statement of the witness K before remanding, the police statement of the prosecutor’s office against I and J, the results of the sexual analysis of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on February 1, 2010 by the National Institute of Scientific Research, the results of the appraisal conducted on March 3, 2010 by the National Institute of Scientific Research, the results of the appraisal conducted by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on February 17, 2012 by the Office of Scientific Investigation of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office.

However, for the following reasons, the above evidence and "the circumstance that the defendant resided in the radius of the base state used for the crime of this case and was absent on the date and time of the crime except for the school period" cannot be deemed to have been proven without reasonable doubt, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is justified.

(1) Since each statement of the witness E and F of the court below is the testimony of the police participating in the investigation, evidence of the defendant, witness's attitude, investigation situation, etc. revealed in the investigation process can not be a direct evidence to acknowledge the defendant's guilty of the facts charged of this case.

② G indicated very concretely in the process of acquiring a Handphone and obtaining a chargeer at an investigative agency, the color of a Handphone, and the process and situation of committing the instant crime. However, at the lower court and the lower court prior to remanding, G stated to the effect that the Defendant reversed all the statements made to the investigative agency and made a false statement in accordance with the police’s return to the police.

G appears to have the possibility of making a false statement in order to avoid repeated investigations by an investigative agency under the circumstances where it was deemed that a juvenile under the age of 14 at the time was in violation of the Act on Probation and was aware that he had been in violation of the Act on Probation. In light of the fact that G was insufficient to clearly state the number of crimes he participated in the crime of this case among the crimes of this case No. 4, G’s statements in investigative agency are insufficient as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case

③ H는 검찰에서 자신의 가족들이 남양주에 있는 외할머니댁에 가서 집이 비었을 때 피고인과 G 등이 놀러와 자고 가면서 집을 난장판으로 만들고 갔는데 그 후 휴대폰 충전기와 젠더가 없어졌다고 진술하였고, H의 어머니인 환송 전 당심 증인 K은 2009. 10. 중순 또는 말경에 H의 외할머니댁에 간 적이 있다고 진술하였다.

However, it cannot be known that H made it difficult to find out that he/she has frequently no filling machines and gender and brought to the prosecution.In addition, the court below made a statement to the effect that he/she would frequently lose the gender as he/she is small in size, and that he/she would not be aware of the loss after being lost, and that K would not accurately memory the time when he/she was damaged, so his/her statement alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant and G had a cell phone filling machine or gender.

A The police statements of the AI and J may be evidence of damage caused by the fraudulent phone of this case, not direct evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case.

⑤ According to the results of the sexual analysis conducted on February 1, 2010 by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, criminal is a 10-year male in progress. Thus, such content alone does not provide evidence to acknowledge a direct relationship with the criminal.

④ According to the results of the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on March 3, 2010, it is common sense to judge specifically whether a person is a voice of the same person due to very lack of the common feature of the offender and the Defendant’s sexual intercourse in extremely part of the language that can be tested with sexual intercourse, such as “water source,” but the word that can be tested with sexual intercourse is very short, and even if the character of the same person is detected in some words, it is difficult to discuss the same person by stating the fact that the criminal was discovered.

In addition, according to the results of the evaluation by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on February 17, 2012, it is difficult to judge the same person as the result of the voice of the offender and the defendant's voice, which installed explosives in the orchard.

As above, even if the characteristics of the same person are observed in some words above, it is difficult to readily conclude that the voice of the criminal and the defendant is the same as those of the defendant due to extremely insufficient words that allow sexual intercourse. As such, each appraisal result is insufficient to be considered as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in this case.

7. The investigation reports bound in the evidence records are only the data on the occurrence of the crime, the type and identification number of the cell phones used for the crime, the location and radius of the base station, and the circumstances in which the defendant was identified as an offender, and there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in this case.

8. Although the Defendant resided within the radius of the base state used for the instant crime, and was absent on the date and time of the instant crime except for the school vacation period among the instant crimes, it appears that the ten males living within the radius of the base state appear to have many. Considering the fact that there is no ground to deem that the criminal of the instant crime was a student and was absent on the date and time of the instant crime, the foregoing circumstance is insufficient as the grounds for recognizing the instant facts charged.

4. Conclusion

Thus, 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 without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

【Reasons for the Decision to be Seconded】

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as stated in the above [Judgment on the Reasons for Appeal] 2-A. This constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime for the same reason as stated in the above 3-A., and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of the judgment against the defendant pursuant to Article 58(2) of the

Judges in the District of Justice

Judge Shin Jae-man