beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) and the specific and consistent statement of the victim, and the situation before and after the witness’s statements, etc., there was a perception that the defendant would price the clothes of the victim in the process of sloping.
It is reasonable to see that there is no choiceal perception even if at least prices.
must be viewed.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by mistake.
2. Determination
A. On June 25, 2017, around 11:50 on June 25, 2017, the Defendant assaulted the victim E (36 years of age) with the part of the clothes of the victim one time in the lodging room for D staff members of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building.
B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) although there was a statement made by E as if it were consistent with the facts charged, that is, the circumstance acknowledged by the adopted evidence; (b) the circumstance acknowledged by the evidence of the adoption, namely, ① the circumstance acknowledged by the fact that the Defendant and E were in dispute with respect to the operation of the Defendant and his/her obligation and/or obligation related thereto; (c) the incident occurred in the course of the occurrence of the instant case in the course of the brushing of the Defendant in order to not attract the Defendant; and (b) the b) the stru F (L) was in the court of the lower court’s judgment in order to attract the Defendant; (d) the Defendant was able to attract the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant was able to display the E’s vessel after undergoing the police investigation; and (e) the E was able to display the E’s vessel.
In full view of the fact that the Defendant testified to the purport that he was “the talking to talk,” and (3) the witness G (a witness) stated in the police phone investigation that “E was a witness to see a dispute about getting out of the E, but did not assault it,” the Defendant was aware and expressed to the effect that it was possible for the Defendant to have sold the E’s vessel during the resistance to the exercise of his tangible power, while the Defendant was aware that he was trying to attack the E vessel.