beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, although the defendant could be found to have obstructed the victim's business by interfering with the legitimate construction work within the land owned by the victim, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be made even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.
In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-examination even after the fact, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as provided in the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a lack of evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has gone through the examination of evidence such as the examination of witness.
In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely
Upon concluding that the facts charged should not be found guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, etc. of this case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination of not guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and the lower court’s determination of not guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
(1)