일반물건방화등
1. The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;
3. Seized lifts.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1 did not assault the victim’sO. Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the victim’sO as guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor 1) According to CCTV images, etc. on which the scene of the crime of fire prevention was taken on December 7, 2013 on or around 04:20 of 2013, the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of fire prevention can be sufficiently recognized. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that there was no proof of the crime of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in matters of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and thus, the sentence of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, in particular, the facts of assaulting the victim, as described in this part of the facts charged, can be acknowledged without any reasonable doubt, in view of the victim’s specific statement from the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, the crime scene supporting the credibility of the statement, and the victim’s face (21-22 pages, 24 pages, and 24 of the evidence evidence of the case No. 2015Gohap56), etc.
Therefore, the defendant's argument on this part is without merit.
B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court: (a) on December 7, 2013, around 04:20, the Defendant and the same person of the crime of fire prevention were not the same, while the male who suffered a spread, using the cap on the CCTV images taken before the lock-up of the crime of fire prevention in the Gu-Si-si, Si-si; and (b) on the screen of the CCTV images taken in front of the scene of the crime of fire prevention in this part of the facts charged. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the images of the CCTV images are the same as the Defendant of