beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) on July 25, 2012, the Defendant, who is the lessee of the building owned by the Defendant, and the victim, who is the lessee of the building owned by the Defendant, was under dispute over the repair cost of the toilet on the first floor of the said building, and was under dispute over the repair cost of the toilet on the left side part of the said building, and caused injury to the victim, such as pressure 12 pressure scarkeing the victim over the floor.
2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant exercised physical force on July 25, 2012, on the ground that the date and time of the instant facts charged was changed from July 25, 2012 to “ July 17, 200,” and the prosecutor’s application for changes in indictment was rejected. In so doing, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment and acquitted the Defendant of the said facts charged.
3. However, the court below's rejection of the prosecutor's application for changes in indictment and the above acquittal decision by the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.
(1) Whether the facts charged are identical or not shall be determined separately on the basis of the relevant facts in light of the basic point of view. In a case where the first facts charged and the revised facts charged differ temporarily, if there are circumstances to deem that the two facts charged are compatible with each other in light of the nature of the case, there is a risk of different social facts, and thus, the basic facts cannot be deemed identical. However, if a crime committed by a party is committed, if both are closely related to the other party to the extent that the crime committed by the other party cannot be established, the two basic facts are identical.
(2) According to the record, the above application for changes in indictment is limited to the date and time specified in the Defendant’s criminal act.