The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that there was no intention of injury on the ground of only D’s legal statement, etc., although the intent of injury to the Defendant was acknowledged based on the submitted evidence, including the initial statement of D’s summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial of relevant legal principles is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the defendant is between the suspect, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). In addition, in a case where an appellate court intends to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment after an ex post facto and ex post facto determination, the first instance court clearly erred in the lower court’s determination of evidence, even though there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of an ex post facto proof

There should be reasonable circumstances to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). (B)

We examine in light of the above legal principles.

In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to recognize the willful negligence of the Defendant’s injury.

In light of the records in this case where there is no new reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial, a thorough examination of the records reveals that the lower court’s determination of evidence, including the credibility of D testimony, was clearly erroneous.

or fact-finding.