logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.11.22 2017노167
공용물건손상
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence of misunderstanding the facts, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be made even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a lack of evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as the examination of witness.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Recognizing that the facts charged should not be found guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, a thorough examination of the records reveals that the lower court is justifiable to have rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone that the Defendant had the intention to damage public goods.

It is insufficient to conclude that it has caused damage to public goods by negligence.

Even if they are punished, they shall be punished.

arrow