beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the CCTV images and the written diagnosis of injury, which are objective evidence of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact of the instant injury or at least the fact that the Defendant has exercised the physical force of the victims.
In addition, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s harmful act is an attack based on the intention of attack and cannot be deemed a passive defensive act, but its illegality is denied, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant: (a) around 19:00 on April 21, 2013, the facts charged in the instant case: (b) around 19:0, on the ground that, in the case of a dispute, the Defendant: (c) she frightly frighted E in the “Dart” located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (d) frighted the F with a hand, fright, frightened, fright, and frighted the finger, and frighted the finger, for the reason that, in the case of a dispute, the Defendant: (a) she frighted up and frighted to the Japanese dementia; and (b) frighted the finger, frighted the e-
As a result, the Defendant added the following parts of the arms that need to be treated for about 14 days to E, and added F to F the salt, tension, etc. of other fingers.
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the following grounds.
Each statement in E/F’s police and in the court of original instance, consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, is difficult to believe that it differs from the situation of CCTV fighting that can be identified in CCTV images, and the injury described in each injury diagnosis document may be suffered in a situation where E/F attacks, such as flicking, etc., and many people open, and flickly turn off to flickly, so it is insufficient to support the fact that the Defendant used the above injury diagnosis document or other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.