beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Defendant
A The fine of KRW 100,000 and the defendant B shall be fine of KRW 300,00.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) Defendants (1) misunderstanding of facts (the point of a joint injury against victims G) Do to photograph G with a cell phone with a mobile phone, and there is no scambling of G, Defendant A did not have any friendly relation with G, and Defendant B did not cause G to be pushed down.
At the instant site, Defendant A did not have been identified as the perpetrator; G’s death diagnosis report was issued more than one month after the occurrence of the instant case; and even based on the Defendants’ written statement, the Defendants did not go beyond G.
(2) Each sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (the fact of joint injury against D by the victim) was able to have sufficiently predicted that the Defendants would go beyond the victim D if the Defendants were sealed, and thus, the Defendants had dolusent intention about the injury of D.
(2) Each sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of arguments in the appellate court, maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The Defendants asserted as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court. The lower court directly examined G, H, I, J, K, K,O, D, P, Q, etc. and lawfully examined them.