The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant driven a vehicle with the knowledge that a person who causes damage to the outside knife of the driver’s seat operated, thereby causing injury to the victim.

There was an intentional injury on the defendant.

2. Determination

A. In the criminal proceedings conducted in the form of a citizen participation trial on the premise of judgment, the opinions presented to the full bench by recognizing the fact that a juror consisting of citizens cultivated through strict selection procedures is effective as a recommendation to help a trial judge make a decision.

If the jury participated in the whole process of a fact-finding and the verdict delivered to the unanimous verdict was adopted as it is in conformity with the jury's conviction, the recognition of facts in the first instance court, which took place following such procedures, should be respected unless the appellate court clearly objects to new evidence examination, and there are substantial circumstances to understand and understand (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14065, Mar. 25, 2010). In the trial proceeding with the citizen's participation, the jury and the defense counsel and the prosecutor's legal public defense surrounding whether he participated in the whole process of a fact-finding, such as examination of witness, and intentionally injured the defendant, were examined, and the court below acquitted the defendant of the charge by adopting the result of the jury's verdict as it is, and found the defendant guilty of the charge.

It is necessary to respect the recognition and judgment of the original court unless there are sufficient and sufficient circumstances to clearly oppose the new examination of evidence in the trial, and there is a need to respect the recognition and judgment of the original court.

B. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant and the injured person were crypted at the entrance of the parking lot of the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D, Manyang-si, and the injured person suffered injury, such as crypted salt, tension, etc., for about two weeks of treatment since the victim exceeded the floor.

However, considering the following circumstances, the defendant's injured person is outside the driver's seat.