상해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the statement at D's investigative agency and court, the injured party, the summary of the grounds for appeal, and the statement of the medical certificate of injury corresponding thereto, the defendant could be found to have inflicted an injury upon the injured party for two weeks by pushing the injured party at the time and place specified in the facts charged of this case. However, the court below acquitted the accused of the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts
2. Determination
A. On September 24, 2013, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, around 20:30 on September 24, 2013, the Defendant, along with the employees of the Busan Central Terminal, working for the Defendant, was engaged in dialogue with the employees of the Busan Central Terminal that is located in the Sinpo-dong, Busan, for the reason that the victim D (37 years of age) who is an employee of the Dong service personnel would be bad for the Defendant, would be able to drinking the victim on the ground that he would not be bad for the ordinary members of the Dong service, while engaging in the behavior that the victim would be able to walk the victim on the part of the victim, such as the victim’s body by hand, and caused injury to the victim, such as the right shoulder, which requires two weeks of treatment.
B. As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court determined that there was no proof of crime for the following reasons and sentenced the Defendant not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
1) The facts charged in a criminal trial must be proven by the prosecutor, and the judge should admit the conviction with probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interests of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002; 2003Do3455, Sept. 2, 2003). 2) As evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case, D's testimony evidence D, the victim, and police against D, the police.