beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant based on the victim's and E's legal statement, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the facts charged according to the statements made by the victim and E in the investigation agency, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
2. Determination
A. On July 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) ordered the Defendant to load fertilizers in the spawn season and to drive the spawn for a spawn while transporting the spawn; and (b) destroyed seedlings worth KRW 40,000 at the market price, 40,000, putting 40 to the spawn for a spawn wheeler with the spawn wheeler’s spawn for a fertilizer located near the spawn field of the victim D located in the spawn city located in the spawn.
B. The lower court determined that the instant case was the case prosecuted by the Defendant’s statement that the victim was driving a shoulder nursery in accordance with the direction of the Defendant who was responsible for all of the instant case, and that E appeared as a witness in the court of the lower court and operated a dry field for the victim without knowing the fact that the victim was planting a shoulder nursery, and that at the time, the Defendant did not issued an order to operate a dry field for the victim to the effect that the victim was not directly from the Defendant, but from E, the victim stated to the effect that the Defendant instructed the Defendant, unlike the statement made by the investigative agency, was not directly from the Defendant, and that the victim was the basis for instituting a prosecution.
The testimony made by E and the victim in an investigative agency was reversed in the court of the court below, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant was acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
(c)
Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence, the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statements by E and victims was clearly erroneous.
There is no special circumstance to find out, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is to recognize the facts charged.