beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors) E and F’s investigation agencies and the statements in the lower court, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the facts charged in the instant case were erroneous and acquitted.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that: (a) in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s testimony at the lower court’s trial on the method of entering a commercial building sale contract in E and E, the degree of excessive desire for the Defendant to fight, the status of the Defendant and E, etc. does not coincide with the recorded contents; (b) each statement at the lower court’s trial on whether the Defendant was kneee-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-con-con-facted with the Defendant’s head debt; and (c) the Defendant stated that the Defendant was the same as the Defendant’s speech of E and B fighting at the lower court, each statement at the investigation agency and the lower court’s judgment is difficult to believe as it is; and (b) the remainder of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of the instant case.
B. The Defendant consistently argued from an investigative agency to the lower court that he did not assault E, as shown in the facts charged in this case, while consistently told that E and B were headed with each other.
In full view of the fact that the statements of E in the investigation agency and the court below do not coincide with the contents of recording the situation at the time, the statements of E and F concerning the subject, method, degree, etc. of assault at the time do not coincide with each other, and Eul statements to the effect that they and E in the investigation agency and the court below stated to the effect that they were able to take their head and they were sponsed, it is difficult to believe each of the statements in E and B investigation agency and the court below as appropriately stated in the reasoning of the judgment below, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.