beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, according to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), the Defendant was found to have inflicted bodily injury as shown in the facts charged, and the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged was erroneous.
2. On March 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 18:40 on March 9, 2015, at around D shopping mall located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (b) had E (68) the owner of the above shopping mall, who was a sectional owner of the said shopping mall, go beyond the upper part of the upper part of the shopping mall, and had E (68) receive approximately three weeks of medical treatment, thereby causing injury to E, such as light salt, etc. in need of three weeks of medical treatment.
3. In light of the degree of force or contact of the defendant revealed in the video of the video CD produced by the prosecutor of the judgment of the court below, the surrounding circumstances before and after it, and the behavior and speech of the people around it, E merely seems to have come out of the body of the defendant, and it does not go beyond his own by the force of the defendant, and it seems that E cannot trust each statement of E as shown in the facts charged, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged.
4. According to the video of the video CD on the trial of a party, according to the video of the video CD, the defendant was faced with the left side of the upper body of the defendant's body and the defendant was faced with the upper body part of the E, and immediately after that, it was acknowledged that E did not take place for one time, but in full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed in the video of the video CD, the issue of whether the defendant was negligent in the injury of E was separate opinion, and even if so, there was a perception and intent as to whether the defendant was negligent in the injury of E.
It is difficult to see, and consistent with this, E's investigation agency and investigation agency.