beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) each statement by the victim K is not only specific and consistent, but also is reliable inasmuch as it does not conflict with the statement by the victim J.
Since CCTV images were taken only in part (the first floor corridor part) of a crime, the credibility of the victim's statement can not be rejected on the basis of this.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the part of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, there was a victim K’s statement (a criminal investigation agency, court of original trial, court of trial, court of trial) as evidence showing that the Defendant committed an assault against the victim K, but this is merely a “salving the victim’s body” (Evidence No. 99, court of trial record No. 49, court of trial record) and it is difficult to view it as evidence of the fact of assault.
This is also the same in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, the JJ, which observed the situation at the time, did not see that the Defendant was at the time when the victim K, and the CCTV images do not seem to have a face of assault more than the above contents of the K statement (as a result of the victim K’s statement, the location of the crime of assault is “hallway” and it is evident that the above CCTV images have taken the corridor), and the victim K stated in the court of the first instance that “each persons and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was at the time,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
On the other hand, among the facts charged in the instant case, it is not sufficient to recognize the Defendant’s injury inflicted on the victim J, L, H, and I in collaboration with C, D, E, and F, only the F’s police statement to the effect that “K and the Defendant had been wraped,” and the H’s police statement to the effect that “K and the Defendant had been wraped,” and there is evidence to acknowledge it differently.