beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case, despite the consistency of the statements made by the victim in the summary of the grounds for appeal and the credibility of the statements consistent with the medical certificate, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. At around 17:00 on February 17, 2013, the Defendant found D’s house located in the permanent residence C, and attempted to take a bicycle installed on the alley of Seodaemun, following the Defendant’s desire to walk up, with the people who had been satisfed at D’s house love room, and d’s satisfing.
At this time, the reason why D would be able to take the back part of the bicycle that the defendant was getting on and off, and the defendant, who was unable to get off the bicycle, suffered an injury that requires approximately 5 weeks for each of D, such as 10, 11 cage cage cage cages and cat cage cages.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the lower court, the lower court determined that: (a) based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of the lower court, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the statement of D and the injury diagnosis of D in the investigative agency and the court of the lower court; and (b) it is difficult to recognize the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone as constituting the facts charged, where D interfered with the occurrence of chemical speculation on February 17, 2013 by finding the Defendant at the D’s house located in the permanent residence of C; and (c) when the Defendant left D’s house, he was unable to have the Defendant left the house; and (d) there is evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case where D and the Defendant consistently denied the facts charged from the investigative agency to this court; and (d) in full view of all the following circumstances recognized by the aforementioned evidence, it is insufficient to recognize the credibility of the statement of D and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.