The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted on the ground that the fact that he was infected cannot be recognized.

The decision of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the fact that he was infected cannot be recognized, and the case reversed for reasons against the rules of evidence.

Article 3(1) of the Punishment of the Use, etc. of Infection Disease Act; Article 2(1) and (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 30, 170(1), and 171 of the Criminal Act; Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Dong-young

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 94No3671 delivered on October 13, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendants 1 and 2 were not guilty of the above 7-dong 5-dong 1, and they were operated by the above 7-dong 5-dong 5-dong 1, and they were invited to remove the above 20-school 1-dong 7-dong 87-dong 7-dong 7-dong 7-dong 7-dong 7-dong 7-dong 7-dong 7-dong 7-dong 1-dong 2-dong 1-dong 2-dong 1-dong 2-dong 1-dong 2-dong 1-dong 2-dong 1-dong 2-dong 1-dong 2-dong 3-dong 1-dong 3-dong 1-dong 1-dong 2-dong 2-dong 1-dong 2-dong 2-dong 3-dong 1-dong 2-dong 3-dong 1-dong 2-dong 3-dong 3-dong 1-dong 2-dong 2-dong 3-

2. Determination:

A. However, such determination by the lower court does not have a strong understanding. First, it can be seen that the instant flame disease was put on the second floor on the rooftop of the building located in the 2nd floor where the said tenant's office was located (the first instance court witness Kim Young-mar, Lee Young-mar, Lee Jong-mar, Lee Jong-mar) and only three Defendants were on the above rooftop (the Defendants voluntarily stated that there was three hundreds of the Defendants in the above second floor rooftop of the building, and the fire officers were on the rooftop of the said building at the time of the occurrence of the fire on the rooftop of the said building with a shooting bridge. At the time of the occurrence of the fire on the rooftop of the said building, only three the Defendants were found on the rooftop (the investigation record 12-16 pages) taken by the Defendant (the investigation record 19-20 pages), and the statement of the lowest mar on the rooftop (the investigation record 19-20 pages). In light of the aforementioned objective circumstances, the Defendants could have been presumed to have been on the rooftop.

B. Next, we examine whether each of the evidence consistent with this case’s rejection of credibility exists.

(1) The testimony at the first instance court of this number and the statements at his prosecutor’s office;

The above fixed number is 3:0 of the prosecutor's office and 10:20 of the above 10:0 of the above 10:0, other members of the above 10:3 of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the above 5th floor of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the 1st floor of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the 1st floor of the 3th floor of the above 1st floor of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the above 1st floor of the 3th floor of the above 1st floor of the 3th floor of the 1st floor of the above 3th floor of the 1st floor of the 3th floor of the above 1st floor of the 3th floor of the 1st floor of the 3th floor of the 3th floor of the 2nd floor.

(2) The testimony at the first instance of Kim Young-sik and the statement at the police.

The above Kim Young-sik stated at the police station that "I am unspicker and I am flicker's spicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flicker's flick's fl.

(3) The testimony at each of the first trials and the statement at the police, in the form of dives, literarys, and gambling.

They are denied all of them in the court of first instance, where the Defendants made a statement that they were infected with chronological disease in the police station. They were witnesses of each court of first instance and the number of 5 and 6 persons on the rooftop of the above office at that time, and among them, they did not comply with the objective facts shown in the record, but did not comply with the statements made by the Defendants in the first instance court and the first instance court (the first instance court) and the first instance court (the first instance court) that there were students other than the Defendants on the rooftop of the above office. (The first instance court) and the second instance court (the first instance court’s testimony that the Defendants were unable to see that they were on the rooftop (the first instance court) and the first instance court’s testimony that they were on the rooftop of the above office and the second instance court’s testimony that they were on the rooftop of the Defendants’ body and the second instance court’s testimony that they were on the roof of the above office and were on the first instance court’s first instance court (the second instance court’s testimony that they were on the first instance court’s body).

C. Therefore, in light of the overall circumstances as seen earlier, the aforementioned statements such as Lee Jong-sik and Kim Jong-sik are not only concrete and detailed in detail about the process of witnessing the crime of the Defendants or the contents of witness from that process, and their relationship with the Defendants, and about about about about about 10:20 persons with low time of the crime of this case, etc., the court below rejected the defendants' statements that they did not have witness or there was a false statement about the contents of witness, or about 10:20 persons with a low time of the crime of this case, and thus, they cannot easily believe their statements. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence by failing to exhaust all necessary reasons, since they did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)