The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) lies in the fact that the Defendant, as a religious issue, talked with the victim C and his residence in the region where the wife was the victim’s arms. However, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts and thereby recognizing the Defendant as having committed the crime of injury, even though the Defendant did not have caused bodily injury by pushing the victim’s head as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. On February 9, 2013, at around 2:30 on February 12, 2013, the Defendant, at the residence of the Defendant and the Defendant located in Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangseo-gu, B102, and the Defendant’s wife (the age of 36), expressed the victim’s desire to “psying, ageing, dead, dead, and dead,” and expressed the victim as “psyings and arms of the victim who entered the toilet with his hand, who was able to take care of the victim, and was faced with the wall for about two weeks.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the facts indicated in the judgment, including the injury diagnosis report and the victim C’s legal statement.

C. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be based on the free evaluation of the judge, is not due to the fact that it conforms to the discovery of substantial truth, and thus, the judge of a fact-finding court who has a prior right to the determination of evidence shall consider the perception and examined evidence obtained in the trial procedure in fact-finding.

In addition, the probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of the judge, but the judgment should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of the conviction to be found guilty in the criminal trial should be sufficient to have reasonable doubt.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5858, Mar. 11, 2010). (2) Murder, the Defendant, from the investigative agency, to the trial.