Defendant

Prosecutor

Acting for a prosecutor to act on behalf of the public prosecutor, public prosecutor Kim Jong-hae (Public trial)

Attorney Park Do-young (Korean National Assembly)

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2012Gohap884 Decided November 15, 2012

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

In full view of the statements of the victim, the certificate of injury diagnosis, and the photographs of the damaged parts, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged even though the defendant was found to have inflicted an injury on the victim. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

Before determining on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the prosecutor examined the facts charged of this case ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of this case to the following facts: “The defendant, at around 15:30 on February 8, 2012, at the construction site of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central Government (hereinafter omitted) and the victim, who was the on-site manager, were in time due to the return of the drawing of the construction site, and the victim, who was in charge of the site manager, was satisfed three times, and satisfed with satisfs at the body.” Since this court permitted this, the decision of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, and this is examined below.

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the victim was abused by the defendant at the time of being investigated by the police around 17:54 on the day of the instant case, and asked the police to "I want to make a report to the hospital," and ② the time of the instant case occurred is around 15:30 on February 8, 2012. The damaged parts photographs submitted by the prosecutor were taken around 17:54 on the same day after the police investigation of the victim. In general, it is hard to find that the victim did not change the victim into the victim's body before the lapse of 3:54 hours, ③ the victim was visited by the police for 14 days, and there is no other error in the judgment of the court below that there was no evidence to acknowledge the victim's injury as to the victim's injury, ④ The victim did not appear to have any other evidence to acknowledge the victim's injury on the scene of the instant case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, and it is again decided as follows.

On February 8, 2012, around 15:30 on February 15:30, 2012, the Defendant used a map at the construction site of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted), and used a breath for the purpose of returning the map with the victim, the on-site manager, and the Nonindicted Party, who was in charge of the construction site, and used a breath of the victim by cutting down the breath, three times, and

1. The statement to the effect that the witness, at the time and place in the court of the court below, carried a breath of the victim's bat at the time and place in the decision of the court below, and shakes the victim's bat

1. In the statement of the Nonindicted Party prepared by the judicial police officer, the statement to the effect that the Defendant was scambling the victim's bat at the time and place in the judgment of the lower court and sealed the victim's bat;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Selection of a fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Although the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not assault the victim, in full view of the fact that the police of the victim, the prosecutor's office, and the court of original trial on the background and method of the assault in this case are consistent, the defendant also recognized the fact that there was a trial expense with the victim, and that the victim reported the victim to 112 at the time of the instant case, it can be recognized that the defendant used the victim as stated in the conjunctive facts charged. Thus, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

The crime of this case shall be determined as ordered in full view of the following circumstances, including the fact that the degree of damage is minor due to simple assault, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant: (a) around 15:30 on February 8, 2012, at the construction site in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted); (b) the victim, the on-site manager, and the Nonindicted Party in charge of the construction site, were found to have been found guilty of the crime of assault, which is a preparatory charge, inasmuch as he/she was found guilty of not guilty of the crime of assault, which is a preparatory charge, by taking three times as a result of the recovery of the shape of the victim’s breath, and cutting down the breath in his/her arms, which requires two weeks of treatment; and (c) the injury of the character of the mouth of the mouth, the boom, the boom, the inspection, and the tension of the mouth; and (d) as seen above, it constitutes a case without proof of a crime, and thus, the Defendant shall not be pronounced guilty

Judge Kang Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)