beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the relevant offenses are as follows: (a) around August 22, 2009, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, who is a security guard, and the victim and the parking problems at the front of the Northern-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-si, on a single occasion, resulting in danger to life by causing the victim by suffering from the shock of the victim's left behind and suffering from the head of the crime; and (b) the Defendant, at around August 22, 2009, suffered from the danger of life by suffering from an injury, such as double dura, which requires medical treatment for 16 weeks.
Meanwhile, according to the records, the defendant was notified by the chief of the police station having jurisdiction over the same day to pay a penalty of KRW 30,000 on August 22, 2009 and paid it on the 26th of the same month on the grounds that he had committed an act of disturbance in neighboring areas under Article 1 subparagraph 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act in the presence of the head of the police station around 20:35
2. The lower court determined that the basic facts of both facts are the same, and accordingly, maintained the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the act of violation for which the Defendant paid the penalty and the Defendant’s penalty are identical to the place of crime, and the act of violation for which the Defendant and the victim paid the penalty are almost the same time, and it is clear that it is a series of acts that occurred at the expense of the Defendant and the victim, and that the police officer was trying to terminate the case without taking account of mutual punishment grounds after ascertaining the previous appearance of the case, and then taking a disposition of notice to both the Defendant and the victim.
3. However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.
Whether the facts charged or the facts charged are identical to the facts.