The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In full view of the statements by the victim of mistake of facts, CCTV images, etc., the court below did not recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim with a brick, but found the victim not guilty for the reason.

B. In full view of the nature of the crime of this case of unreasonable sentencing and the fact that no agreement has been reached with the victim of a special injury, etc., the lower court’s punishment of KRW 4 million is deemed unreasonable.

2. In a criminal trial for determining a 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 a failure, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in a case where the first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-trial trial even after deceiving the Defendant, and the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., the first instance court may raise probability or doubt as to the facts that

Even if it does not reach the extent of sufficiently resolving the reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to concluding that there was an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance court, thereby finding the lack of proof of crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). The lower court shall not be deemed guilty of the facts charged.