beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the purport of the grounds of appeal that the written arrest of a flagrant offender issued by a police officer on January 28, 2013 that “the victim E was arrested by the police officer on the charge of assaulting the Defendant” includes the statement that “the victim E was in contact with the victim (the victim E) and the victim (the defendant)”, the victim E’s statement as to the fact of damage has credibility, and considering the statement in the written diagnosis of injury to the victim E issued on February 2, 2013, part of the statement, etc. of the witness F and G, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of the instant facts, citing the erroneous facts.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). In addition, in light of the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court based on the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).
Based on the above legal principles.