폭행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant's complaint was filed with the defendant as a crime of assaulting the defendant only one month after he was admitted to the investigation agency, but the plaintiff was found to have been punished for assaulting the victim, and there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the only witness Eul did not have any physical contact with the defendant during the process of suppressing the defendant. The court below rejected the defendant's credibility of the defendant's statement solely based on the circumstance that the defendant was not found to be not guilty, although the defendant had no physical contact with the defendant during the process of suppressing the defendant.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who is engaged in air-conditioning installation business, and around 12:30 on April 2, 2013, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s flaps, etc. during the dispute as a matter of payment of air-conditioning installation cost, within the office of the victim D of the first floor underground of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Cbuilding, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
B. The lower court’s judgment acknowledged the following facts and circumstances based on the records, namely, ① reported that the Defendant was assaulted by D directly by D to the police at the time of the instant case; ② As a result, D was investigated by an investigative agency for the suspicion of assaulting the Defendant; and at the time, the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant was satisfying was satisfying, and the investigation of the Defendant was completed on April 30, 2013.