경범죄처벌법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the fact that the police officer E, who regulates the gist of the grounds for appeal, stated that the case was subject to identification procedures at the time of imposing a penalty, stating the Defendant’s personal information in the report on self-determination of the instant crime, and appears to have habitually interfered with drinking at the location of the instant case in light of the Defendant’s criminal history, etc., the relevant facts charged can be fully found guilty.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant facts charged for the following reasons.
1) The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002, etc.).
At the time of the discovery, the defendant denied his criminal act by refusing to affix a seal to the report on the self-declaration of offense, and even after the notice on the payment of multiple penalties was issued since February 1, 2011, the defendant did not pay it, and the defendant did not attend the police station even at the request of attendance over several times.
Nevertheless, on September 15, 2015, the head of the Daejeon East Police Station did not conduct any investigation of witnesses F and G until his memory of the offender of the instant crime by the date on which the statute of limitations expires, and filed a petition for a trial at this court on September 15, 2015, which was earlier than three months before the expiration of the statute of limitations.
3) As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, there are inquiries about the witness E’s legal statement, the police officer’s self-finding report, and the notification disposition, as well as the evidence.
However, there is no criminal defendant's act of disturbance.