Defendant

Prosecutor

Freeboard of leap

Attorney Hwang Sung (Korean)

Seosan District Court Decision 2009Ma64 decided July 17, 2009

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The criminal facts of the notice disposition and the facts charged of this case are similar only to the date and place of the occurrence, and their basic facts are different in terms of the form of the act, the legal benefits from damage, the nature of the crime and the legal benefits protected by the law. Thus, even if the defendant paid the penalty in accordance with the notice disposition, the judgment of acquittal cannot be rendered on the facts charged

2. Determination:

A. The facts charged in this case

On June 11, 2008, at around 11:50, the Defendant: (a) brought an injury on the part of the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (the Nonindicted Party 1 of the judgment of the Supreme Court) due to the marity of the road, the Defendant brought an injury to the victim, such as damage to the right-hand side of the knife, the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

B. The judgment of the court below

According to each legal statement of the defendant and witness non-indicted 1, and a copy of the penalty receipt and the penalty payment notice, the defendant, around 12:30 on June 11, 2008, received a written disposition from the chief of the police station to notify the payment of a penalty of KRW 30,00 won on June 12, 2006, on the ground that he violated Article 1 subparagraph 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act by causing a disturbance to the neighboring area within the ○○ customary market toilet located in Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter omitted), the defendant and witness around 12:30 on June 11, 2008. However, there are differences between the date and place of the above offense and those of the instant facts charged, in light of each legal statement of the defendant and witness non-indicted 1 and 2, it appears that the time and place are the same, and all of them are the same as a series of basic acts that occurred at the expense of the defendant and the victim, and thus, they were acquitted under Article 16 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. The judgment of this Court

The identity of the facts charged or the facts charged is based on the defendant's act and its social factual basis in mind with the legal function of identity of the facts, and its normative elements should be included in consideration. According to the records, the facts charged in this case and the facts charged in this case are the same as the place and time of the crime, and since the defendant was committed in a series of processes of assaulting the victim due to the occupation problem, it is the same as the motive and the other party of the crime. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above facts are identical with the basic facts and thus res judicata effect of the above final judgment also affect the facts charged in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below on the facts charged in this case should be acquitted in accordance with Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a final judgment. It is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to acquittal as argued by the prosecutor.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (However, since it is obvious that the order of the court below is omitted that “the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation is dismissed,” it is added to the last order and the third order of the court below is published, and the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation is corrected to “the public, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.”

Judges Kim Ji-hee (Presiding Judge)