beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts), the following: (a) the Defendant’s insurance coverage and repeated entry and discharge; (b) the financial resources related to the payment of insurance proceeds; (c) the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of the Defendant during the entire period of hospitalization; (d) the details and circumstances of the diagnosis and treatment of the Defendant; and (e) the result of the appraisal of medical records, etc., the Defendant may fully recognize
2. Determination
(a) a court shall be impartial and impartial;
In light of the prosecutor's facts charged and various differences, contradictions, and questions presented in support of the prosecutor's facts charged, and rather, the defendant's assertion and evidence are not an attitude to take criminal court to demand strict certification on the premise of incompetence.
The court in charge of a criminal trial shall hear the arguments of both the prosecutor and the defendant, and investigate the evidence in the trial process, based on the results, and make a decision on whether the crime has been committed in accordance with the presumption of innocence, which is the principle of presumption of innocence required under the Constitution.
B. The lower court, on the following grounds, determined that there was no need for hospitalization as stated in the instant facts charged only by the evidence presented by the prosecutor.
As it is difficult to see it, innocence was pronounced.
① The Defendant consistently asserts to the effect that, from the first investigation to the present court, he was hospitalized in the investigative agency.
② Before 200, the Defendant was in charge of the surgery for recovery of wombs, and the Defendant was in charge of the surgery for 2007 on around 2007, and was in charge of the surgery for Athroids (which means that the Defendant’s normal health condition was not good). In addition, the Defendant was in charge of the surgery from around 201 to around 2014 on several occasions due to an external anti-influences, etc., and the hospitalization for a given period seems to have been due to such surgery and the symptoms before and after it.
(3) In addition, the defendant.