beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, at least dolusent intent to commit assault can be acknowledged, so the facts charged in this case can be sufficiently recognized.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that “It is recognized that the Defendant’s grandchildren, etc. were faced with the face of an emergency medical technician at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that “at the time, there was an intentional assault against an emergency medical technician,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge
① A witness F (Emergency Medical Technicians) bears the testimony that “it is certain that the Defendant would face “loss, etc.,” not “the Defendant’s floor,” and that there was no reason to see the Defendant’s himself as a result of having entered an emergency room immediately before the emergency room, and thus, there is no reason to see him/her. Even immediately thereafter, the witness F (Emergency Medical Technicians) testified that he/she did not immediately go to the Defendant, such as her humping or intending to see himself/herself, and that he/she did so immediately after the locking.”
② A witness G bears the testimony that “The Defendant’s hand, etc. was fit for the face of an emergency medical technician in the process of breaking up the fighting with the nature of the ordinary defendant even though she is short of the time.” The Defendant testified that “The Defendant’s hand, etc. was fit for the face of an emergency medical technician, not when the emergency medical technician was partially taken, and there was no physical contact or argument between the Defendant and emergency medical technician immediately thereafter.”
(3) A very narrow emergency room in which this case occurred.