beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning the accused case shall be reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant does not have committed a mistake of facts that the victim sustained bodily injury by damaging the victim's chest.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On September 23, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around September 23, 2013, at the senior citizens’ center located in the Do apartment complex in the Gunsan-si, the Defendant left the victim’s breast part of the chest; (b) once again, the victim’s breast part of the chest was pushed down on the floor; (c) the victim’s left part was faced with the victim’s upper part of the floor, and (d) the victim’s left part was faced with the victim’s inner part, such as the need for treatment for about six weeks.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the basis of the adopted evidence.
C. (1) The finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, so long as there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(2) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the fact-finding of the party members with respect to the pro-Japanese surgery is acknowledged as follows: ① the defendant consistently states that the victim's chest was not injured as stated in the facts charged from investigative agency to the court of the trial; ② the victim stated in the court below that "the defendant was able to go beyond the defendant's mind at the time of receiving medical treatment at hospital" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009). However, the victim stated in the court below that "the defendant was able to go beyond the defendant's body at the time of receiving medical treatment at hospital)."