The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On July 14, 2016, around 22:30, the Defendant tried to close the security room by sounding the victim D (32 32) who intends to raise a complaint as to parking problems in the apartment in the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City apartment security room and enter the security room into the security room.

At the time, there was a victim who has left the front door to prevent the door from being closed, so there was a duty of care to protect the victim from being broken.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the victim to suffer injury, such as damage to the part on the left part of the side in need of medical treatment for about two weeks by the negligence that forced the victim to close down the door above the back of the victim.

2. The defendant's assertion that there was only a pipe of the sloter reported by the injured party on the wind in such a crepans while the injured party was trying to close the door of the security room, so there was no injury on the part of the injured party.

3. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant should be determined (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010). (B) In full view of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the injured party suffered injury or the possibility of the defendant's predictability, etc., and there is no other evidence to prove each of the above facts.