beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not contain the I's chest, and the victim's injury was inflicted over the I's clum.
2. Determination
A. On July 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 13:05, in the facts charged in the instant case, at the Hrogate located in Nam-gu Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu; (b) there was a dispute between I and I due to the fact that I gave a decoration to the other party when I talked with I; (c) I was pushed the Defendant’s chest, and (d) he was so pushed up to two meters by keeping the Defendant’s chest so far.
At the time, the victim J (hereinafter, 79 years old) was sitting back immediately after I, so the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent the injury of the victim by preventing the victim from being injured when the victim was pushed ahead of I as above.
Nevertheless, the defendant, however, has come to go beyond the victim's status by keeping I closely with I while being pushed ahead of it.
Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the Defendant’s negligence, as seen above, approximately 12 weeks of the need to treat the victim.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the Defendant’s partial statement of the Defendant, based on the witness I and J’s each legal statement and internal investigation report (the receipt of a medical certificate and a medical certificate of doctor R), thereby causing bodily injury to the victim, and thereby, convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.
C. 1) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010).