beta
Text
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won.
3. The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below found the defendant guilty, although the defendant did not inflict an injury upon the victim by taking part in the action.
2. Determination
(a) In the case of a victim’s injury diagnosis statement (30 pages of evidence records), the victim’s injury diagnosis statement;
1.To cut down the uppermost aggregate of the top-hand side;
2. Influoral salt:
3. It is indicated that the treatment for about four weeks is required due to the injury of salted sponse, etc. on both sides;
B. (1) In a criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting a crime should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory to or without doubt.
(2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 201). (2), (i) the Defendant consistently stated by an investigative agency that there is no possibility that the victim was injured by the victim; and (ii) the Defendant’s statement of F, G, and H that witnessed the instant crime (the 43th, 48th, and 52th, the trial record) corresponds thereto; and (iii) the Victim was fighting with the Defendant, and the Defendant was presumed to have taken place on the following day; and (iv) the Defendant was presumed not to have attempted to take the Defendant intentionally (the 76th, 77th, the trial record); and (iii) the Defendant cannot be ruled out the possibility that the victim was injured by the victim during the process of benefiting the victim’s reputation.