beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (the factual error and misapprehension of the legal principle) was removed from the victim at the time, and did not commit an assault against the victim by destroying the victim’s breath, such as the crime of the original judgment, even though Defendant A did not have committed an act of assaulting the victim, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the above assault in violation of the rules of evidence.
B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that: (a) the victim of mistake of facts (as against the defendant), appears to have stated the truth coming from the consistent experience; and (b) considering that the witness made a statement by the police with the contents consistent with the victim’s statement, the credibility of the above police’s statement cannot be rejected solely on the ground that he did not memory it in the court below; and (c) the Defendants’ statement to the purport that he was initially investigated by the police and subsequently reversed it on the grounds that it was difficult for the defendants to understand the facts charged; (b) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor submitted by the prosecutor to the effect that the defendants jointly assaulted the victim, such as the facts charged, can be sufficiently recognized. 2) An unreasonable sentencing sentence (as against the defendant A), which the court below rendered to the defendant A, is too unreasonable
2. Determination
A. We examine the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim consistently stated that “the victim spawdddd from the Defendant A,” and ② the Defendant B also testified that he had been present at the same time (see, e.g., Articles 84, 85, and 94 of the trial record), and ③ the victim and the Defendant B’s statement were insufficient in view of the lack of objective materials to deem that the statements were false, the lower court found the Defendant A guilty of the assault committed against the victim.