beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant’s testimony is a false statement contrary to memory when taking into account the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s appearance and testimony in the court of the case involving injury to C (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Da352 decided April 3, 201), the relationship with C, and the overall purport of the Defendant’s testimony.
However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The court below held that there is proof that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone that the defendant made a false statement in the case of injury to C or that the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory.
The facts charged in this case were acquitted on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the judgment of the court of this case and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is proper that the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of misapprehending the facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(1) In the court of the case of injury to C, the Defendant was unable to deem that the prosecutor’s “assumptive interest of C E” was taking place.
The statement was made by the defendant, and it is required that C did not follow the side of E, although he continued to be the defendant.
In addition, it is required that the face was not seen.
The question of “A witness had been reported continuously,” but did not seem to have been followed.
“The statement was made, and there was no fact that “C’s side interest of this E” was created, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.
There is no fact stated “........”
② E is low by intentionally citing low-level C in the original court.