The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim’s statement is not reliable because it is not consistent, and CCTV is not submitted by the Director of the Management Office, the manager of the apartment management, and it is not admissible as evidence that is collected without complying with due process. Thus, there is no proof of crime.

B. Even if the Defendant was the part of the victim’s arms, it is not illegal as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

(c)

The sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant continued to use the victim and assaulted several times the victim’s clothes within the apartment complex as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

The video recording of apartment CCTV that was submitted as evidence is confirmed and submitted by the police officer in the apartment guard room in which the above video is located.

The rule of exclusion of illegally collected evidence stipulated in Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not follow the procedures stipulated in the Constitution and laws and denies admissibility of evidence when the investigative agency collected evidence without following the procedure and the violation of the due process infringes on the substantial contents of the due process, but did not obtain approval of the apartment management complaint.

due process has been violated.

It is difficult to see that the investigative agency committed an illegal act in securing the CCTV images.

There is no circumstance to consider.

In addition, the Defendant consented to the above CCTV images in the first instance trial.

According to the above video that is admissible as evidence, it is confirmed that the defendant followed the victim and turns the shoulder part of the victim, and that the defendant stolen the laundlop before the victim, so it is defective in the laundry.

The injured party's part of the victim is that the defendant 2, 3 times bat and fat, fat, and fat, fat, and fat, fat and fated the fat, even if the injured party's refusal and fat up to the place of damage.