beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the Defendant of all the facts charged of this case, and found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) After having finished telephone conversations with C, which is a external third village, the Defendant heard the desire for another person, and misleads the Defendant to have expressed his desire to do so. On June 22, 2013, around 16:22, the Defendant sought C at the same entrance of Gyeonggicheon-gun Down-gun 1, 201, and assault C several times.
2) On June 3, 2013, at the same place as above 16:00 on June 3, 2013, the Defendant, at the same time as above 1) and on the same grounds as above 1, had a stone with C’s head.
As a result, the defendant caused C to suffer from an incurable disease, which is the disability of the first degree in the cerebral lele.
B. The lower court’s determination 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence are as follows: (i) it is difficult to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged because C was unable to properly memory the facts charged of the instant case due to the injury of C, namely, the statement made by C alone; (ii) the dialogue between E and F, F’s investigation agency and the court of the lower court; (iii) the statement made by C is not consistent as to the circumstances in which C was faced with face; (iv) the Defendant and C was not directly present; and (v) the Defendant and C was unable to directly have been present; and (v) the statement made by C was merely a delivery of the content from C or talking about his/her position; and (v) it is difficult to believe F’s statement because C was not clearly identified as of June 23, 2013 because it was not clearly identified as of June 2, 2013; and (iii) G was disputed at the investigative agency and the court of the lower court on June 22, 2013.