beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the statements made by investigation agencies G et al. and CCTV images, etc. of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendant got F to escape;
It is reasonable to view it.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In a criminal trial on the market, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree to have such conviction, there is a part that is likely to be suspected of being guilty.
Even if the Defendant’s testimony should be determined in favor of the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do20506, May 30, 2017). With respect to the recording of meetings and the analysis report of telephone conversations submitted by the Prosecutor in the trial room, the above interview recording was recorded between E and G from the date when testimony was completed in the court of original instance to the date when F is present as a witness. Examining the contents, the F appears to be merely a level of confirming the contents of testimony from E and G. Meanwhile, since the above call analysis report was in F with the Defendant immediately after E was exchanged with the Defendant, the above call was not made between E and the Defendant.
“The testimony of the lower court and the prosecutor’s statement are inconsistent with the E’s testimony, but it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant made it easier to escape F, etc.
Therefore, even if the evidence submitted in the court below was neglected, it was proved that the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, that the defendant was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant had caused F to escape.
It is reasonable to judge not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to see it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is a mistake of facts and a legal principle.