logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.03.20 2013노2064
청소년보호법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, despite the fact that the facts charged were sufficiently proven through evidence such as the statement at E and F investigation agency, which is a juvenile of the gist of the grounds for appeal, and the police officer H's legal statement, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts,

2. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in light of the following: (a) the prosecutor’s statement as evidence consistent with the facts charged; (b) each written statement (E/F); (c) written statement prepared by E/F (E/F); (d) the police officer of the G District G District Police Station in Seoul, which controlled the scene at the time, and (e) the Defendant did not sell the subject-matter to E, etc., but rather the Defendant did not sell the subject-matter to E, etc.; and (e) it is difficult to avoid the possibility that E would have caused only the subject-matter under cooling without the Defendant’s permission.

The burden of proof for the crime prosecuted in a criminal trial is the public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, so that there is no such evidence. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737, Feb. 24, 2006). According to the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the fact that E and F ordered the Defendant to perform the alcohol at an investigative agency is recognized.

However, E reversed the statement of the court below to the effect that he brought one disease in the cooling house without the permission of the defendant in the court below.

E is the reason why the E makes a false statement at the investigative agency, and the customer and the time room who were on the next table at the time.

arrow