The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Defendant

A.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant did not assault or inflict an injury on the victim C, and the injury of the victim was caused by either plucking or plucking up the victim’s arms or going beyond the victim together with A. 2) The punishment of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter “fine 4 million won”) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (e.g., a fine of KRW 1 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 4 million) against the prosecutor (e.g., a fine of KRW 1 million) is deemed unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The probative value of Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such determination must be consistent with logical and empirical rules. The degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require any possible doubt, and the rejection by causing a suspicion of having probative value without a reasonable ground is not allowed as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, “reasonable doubt” referred to in this context does not include any doubt and correspondence, but refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that cannot be compatible with the facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules. The doubt based on conceptual suspicion or abstract possibility cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt.

(2) In light of the contents of the first instance court’s judgment and the evidence duly produced by the first instance court, the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or the first instance court’s judgment and the appellate court’s examination result and the appellate court’s examination.