The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the statement of the victim and the record of the duty of the victim as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the victim did not receive a written diagnosis of injury by making a false statement to the doctor for the purpose of using it in the relevant criminal case of the defendant, but did not actually inflict an injury on the defendant by walking the victim in the face of the actual discovery

However, the court below held that the injured person suffered from sagul sagn sagn sagy by the defendant

For the reason that it is difficult to conclude it, innocence was pronounced.

2. Prosecutor’s assertion 1) In the relevant criminal case law, the written diagnosis of injury may serve as a sufficient evidence to prove the criminal facts of the Defendant, along with the victim’s statement.

However, the existence of the injury fact and the relation with the person should also be acknowledged to have reached such a level that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, when there are circumstances to suspect objectivity and credibility of the injury diagnosis, it should be very careful in determining the probative value.

In particular, when the medical possibility is issued only based on the victim's subjective appeal, etc. that the death diagnosis certificate mainly has been issued, the date and time of the diagnosis shall be close to the time and time when the injury occurred, and there is no reason to doubt the credibility in the process of issuing the death diagnosis certificate, and it is deemed that there is a new cause unrelated to the cause or circumstance of the injury claimed by the victim, whether the injury part and degree stated in the death diagnosis certificate are consistent with the cause or circumstance of the injury claimed by the victim, and the inconvenience of the victim complaining for it has occurred.

The issue of whether a doctor can be determined, the grounds for issuing a written diagnosis of injury, etc. shall be examined equally.

In addition, the judgment of the court below should be made in accordance with logical and empirical rules by closely examining the time when the injured person received medical treatment after the injury case, the motive and background of receiving medical treatment, and the progress of medical treatment thereafter (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15018, Nov. 25, 2016).