beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. On January 7, 2012, the Defendant entered a restaurant in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City around 20:20.
The Defendant, without any justifiable reason, fell from the body of the victim D(50 years of age) several times, taken the face of the victim several times due to drinking, and taken the head of the victim one time due to the main disease, which is a dangerous object in the next place.
In addition, the defendant took several times the body of the victim E (the age of 43) who was faced by the head of the victim, and taken one time the head of the victim was a dangerous object from the wall.
B. The court below held that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the part of the facts charged that the defendant injured the victims in the process of physical fighting, including the background of the occurrence of the crime of this case, the background of the report of this case, the degree of the injury of the defendant and the victims, the shape and form of the victim, the victim's injury, the possibility that the victims suffered injury in the process of physical fighting, and the defendant and the witness's attitude of statement in this court, etc., the court below held that the crime of injury was committed only on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the part of the facts charged that the defendant injured the victims in the process of physical fighting, including the victim's face, the victim's face can be taken by hand, the victim E can be taken by the victim E, and the victim E's oral scambl with the victims, and the victim E was able to walk the victims.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The fact that the defendant led to a mistake of facts in an investigative agency, while the victim E was her her son and her sonum, but did not explain the head of the case. The defendant agreed with the victims on the day following the occurrence of the case, and agreed with the F which is the head of the restaurant.