폭행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. 항소이유의 요지 피고인이 현행범 체포 당시 경찰관에게 피해자 D의 얼굴을 손으로 몇 번 밀쳤으나 주먹으로 때린 사실은 없다고 진술하여 폭행사실을 인정한 바 있고 왼쪽 이마 부위와 왼쪽 귀 뒷부분이 빨갛게 달아오른 피해자의 사진이 증거로 제출되어 있으므로, 피해자의 법정증언이 없더라도 제출된 증거를 종합하여 피고인에 대한 폭행죄를 인정할 수 있음에도, 이와 달리 피고인에게 무죄를 선고한 제1심은 사실오인의 위법이 있다.
2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was entered by the Defendant around 01:27, May 16, 2012, to the “Eju” where the victim D is a manager in front of Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
As a result, the victim committed assault, such as taking the head of the victim and taking the victim's face five times in drinking, on the ground that the victim did not feel, even though he/she called the victim's punishment, etc.
Among the evidence that correspond to the above facts charged, the police statement of D, which corresponds to the evidence, did not consent to the defendant to use it as evidence, and was not proven to be genuine by the statement of D on the trial date, D had been absent from the first instance court 4 times a summons of the witness and three times a decision of the fine for negligence by the witness in the absence of the witness, and the arrest warrant of the witness was issued twice but has not been executed.
It cannot be admitted as evidence, and the content of the protocol of interrogation of the police officer against the defendant is that the defendant does not have any fact at the time of the victim. As such, the statement that the defendant made a statement that the defendant sent to the police officer, which is the remaining evidence, recognized the victim's face, and the above facts charged that the video of the victim's face of the damaged part and the ear's face were when the defendant took the head of the victim and took five times the face of the victim.