beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) stated the facts of damage corresponding to the facts charged from the investigation agency to the court of the court below in detail, and it is obvious that D's superior situation was incurred in the process of satisfing off the fingers from the defendant while satisfing them with the defendant, and consistent with E's witness's statement, the court below, without reasonable grounds, acquitted the defendant on the grounds that D's statement in the court of the court below is in detail different from the statement in the investigation agency, unilaterally made the statement in the investigation agency, and the situation of D's superior situation was occurred in the process of drinking the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case at around 00:01, October 23, 2012, the Defendant, at the main point of “C” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, drinked with the victim D and talked with the victim. On the other hand, the Defendant argued that the victim’s face, breast parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte parte part
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the following grounds, on the grounds that the instant facts charged constitute a crime or a case where there is no proof of a crime.
(1) There are evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, including D, E’s investigative agency and legal statement, and the injury diagnosis report attached to the police investigation report. However, in full view of the following circumstances known in the record, it is insufficient to deem that the Defendant inflicted injury upon D due to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Dor, the defendant explained consistently and clearly the present situation from the investigative agency to the court, and he assaulted himself.