beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Reasons for appeal
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence of fact-finding, despite the fact that the injury of the victim was caused by the Defendant’s assault, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the victim was innocent on the ground that the injured person suffered the injury.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the amount of KRW 300,000) is deemed unreasonable.
2. In a criminal trial as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the recognition of facts should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in light of the fact that the appellate trial has the character as ex post facto trial even though it belongs to the court, and the spirit of substantial direct trial as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., there is insufficient proof to exclude reasonable doubt after the first instance court has undergone the examination of evidence, such as examination of witness.
In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely
Clearly concluding that the facts charged should not be found guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). The lower court determined that this part of the facts charged was acquitted on the grounds of its detailed statement of the grounds for its determination.
The court below held.