beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The judgment of the court below that convicted the Defendant of the crime of assault even though the Defendant did not assault the victim on the date of the victim’s death was erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the death of assault even though the defendant was found to have committed assault against the victim and caused his death is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion
2. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant denied the crime by having no assaulted the victim on the day of the victim’s death from the police to the court of first instance.
According to each evidence presented in the summary of the evidence in the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of assaulting the victim (hereinafter "the first assault in this case") around October 28, 2013. In addition, according to the J and L court's statements and each police's statement, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting the victim at a time. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have erred as otherwise alleged by the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. On October 28, 2013, whether the Defendant assaulted the victim on or around 19:00 on or around October 28, 2013, the lower court determined that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as stated in the lower court’s judgment, on October 28, 2013 (hereinafter “second assault”).
The statement of H in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that witness H did not have credibility, and the statement of F in the investigative agency and the court of the court below alone is sufficient to recognize that the defendant committed the second assault of this case.