beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. Examining the overall act of the defendant acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconception of facts, even though it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant violated Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (hereinafter “instant provision”), and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground of excessively limited interpretation of the elements of the instant provision.
2. Determination
A. A. A prosecutor made an ex officio determination at the trial, and filed an application for amendments to a bill of amendment to the indictment with the content that “it was slick or slicked by the government offices” changed from among the facts charged in the instant case to “it was slick or slicked by the government offices,” and this Court changed the subject matter of the judgment by permitting it. Therefore
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.
B. On May 20, 2018, the judgment of the court below as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case 1) The defendant, on May 20, 2018, is interpreted as "in the Busan Jin Police Station C district located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and the previous defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender of the crime of assault, and entered the said district, and made drinking to police officers such as police officers, etc., who had been working in the situation where he was under the influence of alcohol for about two hours, such as "I am arrested as Ra, I am, I am, I am you will am under the influence of alcohol for about two hours, such as "I am under the influence of alcohol, I am under the influence of alcohol." The court below held that "I am under the influence of alcohol" as "I am under the influence of alcohol", and that the defendant did not make a significant noise or conduct in the district at the time.