beta
Text
Defendant
All of the appeal filed by A and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor against Defendant B shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable because the sentence of the lower court (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor(s) paid the meal costs twice to Defendant A and his singing clubs before Defendant B added them to Defendant A and his singing clubs, and there was no reference as to the payment of the drinking value.
Defendant
B is reasonable to deem that there was a willful negligence in regard to the fact that he was well aware of the fact that he did not have any intent or ability to pay the drinking value, and that he would be unable to pay the drinking value if he did not pay the money.
2. Determination
A. 1) The determination of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, the court should determine the defendant’s interest even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate trial has the character as an ex post facto trial even though it belongs to the court of appeal, and the spirit of the substantial direct psychological principle under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., in a case where the first instance court rendered a judgment of not guilty of facts on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, etc., it may be probable or doubtful as to the facts opposed to the appellate trial
Even if it does not reach the degree of sufficient resolution of reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone is insufficient to prove the crime.