beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant did not know about A.
2. Determination
A. At around 06:40 on April 4, 2013, the Defendant charged with this part of the facts charged, on the ground that he raised a dispute between A (54 years of age) and A (54 years of age) on the first floor of the department store underground, and the daily day preceding the day, leading A’s hand, leading A’s hand, flaging A’s flag, and flaging A’s flag’s flag, and flaged A’s flag’s flag, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment to A several times.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.
C. 1) The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a relevant criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree of conviction as above, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, and there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s non-competence, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). 2) The defendant’s judgment consistently denies the facts charged that there is no fact at the time of A.
The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., (i) G at the time of both the Defendant and the Party A’s examination; (ii) G made a statement to the effect that the Defendant did not see A at the time of examination; and (iii) during the examination process of the court of the first instance, the Defendant did not dumbling or suling the erogate of A; and (iv) rather, the Defendant unilaterally met from A.