beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant injured the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case, and there is sufficient evidence to support this, but the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On October 16, 2012, the injured party C (the age of 56) was stipulated as follows: “Around 08:50 on the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant, who is an employee of the service company cleaning the underground parking lot of the above apartment in the underground parking lot, was stipulated as follows: “It is difficult to clean without moving the vehicles parked in the underground parking lot.”
The victim, who is the head of the above apartment management office, expressed the defendant's desire to "this sus shall be discarded down," while taking the defendant's face more than 10 times in drinking, and led the defendant to brain-dead, salll, salvine, salvine, salvine, salvine, and salpists that require medical treatment for about 21 days.
At the same time and place as above, the Defendant: (a) taken the victim’s face while taking a bath to himself; (b) taken the bat of the victim’s bat; (c) taken the bat around 3-4 fat; (d) taken the cat of the fat; and (e) taken the cat of the fat; and (e) taken the cat of 3-4 fat; and (e) taken the fat of c
B. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the C's statement in the investigation agency and the court of original instance, which correspond to the facts charged in this case, is hard to believe on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. In light of the above, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.