beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);
A. Fact-finding (not guilty part) The victim consistently stated the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant injury from the investigation stage to the court of the court below. The CCTV images taken and video recorded at the scene of the instant crime and the E’s statements that correspond to this.
As such, since the victim's statement is reliable, it can be recognized that the defendant has inflicted bodily injury on the victim at the price of the victim's knee's knee-knee-knee-knee-knee
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged of injury.
B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, observation of protection, and community service for 80 hours in 6 months) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On October 7, 2017, at around 23:45, the summary of the charge on the charge of not guilty portion of the Defendant: (a) in front of the Sinyang-si apartment 40-ro, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant: (b) in relation to the Defendant’s d (14 years old) with respect to the Defendant’s son’s meat, she saw the flab; (c) led the victim D (14 years old); (d) with the Defendant’s flab, “a pair flab,” and “a flably managed the flab,” the Defendant’s face was fladd by hand; and (d) the victim’s face was flae with the head of the victim’s kne and kne, the Defendant obstructed the flab of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of which requires medical treatment for more than 12 weeks; and (d) the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the part.
B. 1) On the premise of the judgment, in light of the purport and spirit of the substantial direct deliberation principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act of Korea, the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the court below in light of the contents of the judgment below and the evidence duly examined by the court below.