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. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who is guilty of facts, did not commit an injury to the victim after he saw the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in the relevant legal doctrine criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, there is no doubt about the defendant's guilt.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003).

The judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: (a) the victim made a relatively consistent statement that he left the body of the victim, and (b) the victim, a live-in person of the victim, also stated that the victim made the above fact of damage, and the victim made a statement that he had a lot of holes on the part of the victim, such as the arms, legs, etc. at the time of the crime; and (c) on May 26, 2017, which was three days after the date of the crime, the victim's son F was made a statement that the victim had a hole in the hospital, knee and arms when the victim was in the hospital, etc., the victim was knee and arms, etc.; and (d) the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, as described in the facts charged, as the lineal ascendant of the spouse

C. According to the photographs taken by the victim as of May 26, 2017 at the time of hospitalization, there are doubtful circumstances, such as the discovery of a hole in arms and legs parts, etc.

However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by records and pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was taken several times to the defendant and caused the transfer to the victim, who is the lineal ascendant of the spouse, and evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.