beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the testimony made by the victims to the effect that they are favorable to the defendant is not reliable, and it is more reliable to the investigative agency to make a statement to the effect that the victims and witnesses H correspond to the facts charged in the instant case. Thus, the defendant can be recognized in collaboration with Co-Defendant C in the lower court, and the fact that the victim G was
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant was not guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant, in combination with C, went beyond the floor by cutting down the body of the victim G, although there was each statement of the police protocol on G, H, G, and F as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, each statement of the police protocol on G, H, G, and F was written.
Rather, according to the statements of the witness G, F, and H in the original trial and the statements of each police interrogation protocol against the defendant, the defendant was found not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the defendant was able to turn on the fighting between G and C in the process of speaking the fighting with G and C.
B. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the statement made to the investigation agency of H, G, and F is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant was in excess of the floor by putting his body in line with C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. In light of the purport that “the Defendant was able to fight,” the G, F stated in the court of the court below that “the Defendant was about to fight,” and H stated in the court of the court below to the effect that “I would know whether the Defendant was sealed or not” in the court of the court below, the statement made to the investigation agency of H, G, and F alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was in excess of the floor by putting in line with G.
Therefore, it is true.