beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that a container was transferred at the defendant's order and that the property of the victim company was damaged as stated in the facts charged in this case can be fully recognized.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a conviction.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305 delivered on February 25, 2000, etc.). B.
In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case (i.e., the reversal of the defendant's assertion among the arguments stated in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor were based on the "police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant" (No. 12), which was not adopted as evidence in the court below, and (ii) D appeared as a witness in the court of the court below and stated that "it was a person related to the HA who was not the B in charge of the dispute resolution in moving of the actual container". The credibility of the above statements made after being given a warning of the punishment for perjury is higher than the credibility of the statement made by the investigative agency, and (iii) in the court of the court of the court of the court below, D stated that "the defendant tried to observe the containers of the victim company at the time of the appeal, and the defendant tried to fight his body so that he could not interfere with the work."