특수상해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was located in a very close distance to the victim E at the time of the appeal, and thus, it could be sufficiently recognized that the victim could be injured by free trade, etc. in a case where the victim was placed on the wall immediately adjacent to the victim’s wall. However, in light of the body or degree of the wife suffered by the victim, the circumstance where the Defendant was suffering from a main disease on the part of the victim while he was in a dispute with the victim, the Defendant could be deemed to have immediately affected the victim’s wall right by the victim.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held that there is no evidence to acknowledge the criminal intent of the defendant, even though at least the willful negligence of the injury was recognized, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, insofar as the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.
B. As to the facts charged of this case, the court below acknowledged the following circumstances, i.e., although the charge of this case was revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below that the victim was faced with the victim's right side part of the victim's left side part, where the victim was faced with the wall and the victim's disease was faced with the wall, and the victim's disease was faced with the wall, and there was a heat of 7 cm above the wall. However, the court below stated that the disease of this case was faced with the victim's right side wall immediately adjacent to the victim's immediate side, but the victim's disease of this case, which the defendant was faced with the victim's right side part of the wall.