logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.11.28 2019노444
일반교통방해등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the evidence in the facts charged in the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant was posted one Track on the dutent, which is a passage to and from the entrance of the money company, for the purpose of obstructing the victim to extend or rebuild his money death.

2. Determination

A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s above conviction, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in a case where the first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-trial trial even after deceiving the Defendant, and the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., the first instance court may raise probability or doubt as to the facts that

Even if it does not reach the degree of sufficiently resolving the reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone makes it difficult to prove the crime in the first instance judgment that there was an error of mistake of facts, and thus, cannot be found guilty of the charge (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). (b)

The judgment of the court below in this case is that there is no objective data to specify the date and time of photographing photographs taken by the victim or to confirm the situation at the time, and the victim is not the defendant's Tracker as stated in the facts charged.

arrow