특수폭행
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, even though the defendant did not assault the victim by driving a vehicle with approximately three meters every month and driving it over the ground floor of the victim, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The summary of the facts charged is the land owner of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul and 202, and around June 13:00 on June 27, 2016, the Defendant discussed the dispute over the issue of the return of deposit for lease and the apportionment of real estate brokerage fees among the stairs inside the above building, E, the owner of the above building, and the victim E, his/her incidental, from the stairs inside the above building.
At around 13:15 on the same day, the Defendant received the lease deposit from D and the injured party, and was trying to walk a F car parked on the front side of the building in front of the said building, and the injured party demanded the return of the lease deposit to C, demanding the Defendant to set up a receipt for the refund of the lease deposit, and demanded the stop. However, the Defendant used approximately three meters for driving the said car, which is dangerous things, to make the victim go beyond the ground floor by driving the car over 3 meters in a speed.
3. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by comprehensively taking into account the statements made by the victim in the investigative agency and the lower court court and CCTV images as evidence.
4. Determination on whether a deliberation was made
A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). In particular, the defendant consistently denies the facts charged and the facts charged are charges.