beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant did not assault the victim, and the defendant believed only passive resistances during the process of defending the victim's assault, and there is only a passive resistance in the process of defending the victim's assault and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. On February 23, 2016, the Defendant, at around 22:00, assaulted the victim by walking a part of the victim’s face and the chest with a knife with the knife, who was the victim’s victim’s knife, at his own house located in the D Officetel No. 29 years of age) and the knife dispute.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds that the credibility of the victim’s statement was recognized in light of the circumstances before and after the instant crime was committed, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the victim’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime, which could be revealed by comprehensively taking account
(c)
The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial for the above deliberation ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that the aforementioned convictions, the defendant’s interest should be determined even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the defendant’s assertion or defense or uncomfortable dismissal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). In light of such legal principles, the principal evidence that corresponds to the facts constituting the instant offense exists in the victim E’s investigative agency and the court below and the court below, but it is difficult to believe that each of the above statements were made in light of the following circumstances, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is alone.