2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the following grounds.

1) In full view of the lack of consistency in the statements made by the victim, the defendant denies the facts charged in this case from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, the investigation agency to the court of original trial, etc., and the fact that E did not properly give the defendant an opportunity to resist the victim's statement, the witness in this case stated in the court of original instance that E did not regard the victim's injury, and the victim did not comply with the summons from the court of original instance even after being summoned by the court of original judgment, it cannot be deemed that the police's statement made in the police was proven to have been made in a particularly reliable state. Accordingly, the police's statement about the victim is inadmissible, and the credibility cannot be acknowledged as to the statements made by the victim in the report on the act of violence and the act of violence and the act of violence cannot be acknowledged, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case.

B. The prosecutor’s assertion 1 violence case, the same conduct report, and the report on violence exposure report are presented to the police officer called up following the report of domestic violence 112 by E at the scene immediately after the crime was committed, and the victim and E at the time were heard about the situation immediately after the crime was committed. In light of the circumstances of the preparation, there is little room for false intervention, and the victim’s statement made at the police station is the victim’s statement stated in the above violence case, the same conduct report, and the report on domestic violence exposure.