beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was at the site of the victim G, who is the wife of the victim D (hereinafter “victim”). The Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to “Is to change this fraud, Isthalian,” and the Defendant expressed “Isthalian,” as a criminal law. The Defendant’s above desire expressed “Isthalian,” and the Defendant’s act can be assessed as an insulting act against both the victim and G in which Isthalian funeral was conducted.
Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant found the victim on the ground that he/she died of the victim himself/herself while purchasing chickens from the victim, and died of the victim’s disease during the period from around 09:20 on June 29, 2016 to around 09:40 on the same day; (b) at the street store in the E market operated by the victim, and (c) whether he/she purchased the chickens from the victim and died of the victim; (c) whether he/she sold the said chickens;
H. The phrase “the victim openly insulting the victim.”
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the F’s statement in the lower court’s court, the victim’s investigation agency’s partial statement, and the written accusation alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire as stated in the instant facts charged, and there is no other evidence to
(c)
1) In a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be judged even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). In addition, the criminal appellate court has the character as a follow-up trial even if it belongs to the defendant.