beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the following facts: (a) beyond the victim D of mistake of facts and two injuries suffered from each other; (b) there were no stones or obstacles to the injury; (c) the victim from the investigative agency to the original trial consistently stated from the investigative agency to the original trial; (d) the victim was in front of the defendant; (c) it is natural that the defendant could not memory the victim later because the victim was in front of the defendant; (d) the defendant denied the fact that the victim was in front of the police; (e) the witness E’s statement corresponds to the victim’s statement and can be recognized as credibility in the victim’s statement; and (e) the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the witness E’s statement corresponds to the victim’s statement, as described in the facts charged in the instant case, the victim suffered from two injuries from the victim by pushing the victim more than the victim, but the court below acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of a suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too uncomfortable and unfair.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts in a criminal trial has the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense charged in the criminal trial, and the recognition of conviction ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's benefit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). Also, in light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous.