beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the Defendant, as to the facts of this case, spits or spits the bats of d, the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
The argument is asserted.
B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the lower court (one million won a penalty) was too too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On September 29, 2014, the Defendant: (a) spited the brine of DNA in response to the batoning of the baton of D and vehicle operation on the front of C, and the fating of DNA in response to the baton of D (37 years of age).
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.
(c)
1) Determination on the grounds that there is a suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, even if there is no such evidence, inasmuch as there is no such evidence, the burden of proof on the criminal facts prosecuted in the relevant legal doctrine ought to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads to the conviction of a judge to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
Even if there is no choice but to determine the interest of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3163, Jun. 12, 2014). 2), the defendant consistently denies the facts charged in this case to the effect that, while the defendant spits or spits DNA into D’s hand in the process of spitsing DNA by taking assault from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, it is true that the defendant spits DNA into D’s hand. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the court of first instance, there is no room to make a reasonable doubt only with D’s statement, which seems consistent with the facts charged in this case.