beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel
A. Error of fact: (a) the Defendant tried to capture the DNA mobile phone in which the Defendant was exposed to the mobile phone; (b) the Defendant’s hand did not contact with D’s body or mobile phone; and (c) the Defendant did not assault D’s face by his hand as stated in the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the ground of the testimony of D without credibility, etc., thereby misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime and the fact that the Defendant also fell within the scope of the face as the inner diameter falls within the floor of the instant case, etc., the lower court’s sentence imposing a fine of KRW 2 million is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On March 23, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around 16:30, the Defendant, in front of the E-vehicle in which the victim D (V, 68 years old) was aboard, committed assaulting the victim’s face by taking a cell phone in front of the E-vehicle on which the Defendant d (V, 68 years old) was boarding.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by using D’s statement, damaged photographs, and CCTV images improved in the form of evidence, and found that the Defendant committed an assault against D once in the video of the said CD, thereby damaging the bags cited by D.
However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.
C. (1) We examine the evidence submitted by the prosecutor first.
(A) The written statement of D in the lower court, the police interrogation protocol of D, and the written statement of D was stated in the investigative agency as follows: “The mother who the Defendant was faced with his face with his hand and was written, fell on the floor. The husband who was next to the lower court stated that he was the aged 74.”