폭행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. On October 8, 201, the Defendant, at around 20:10 on October 20, 201, told the victim of the defect in the dispute between D and E (the victim, 52 years of age) and D’s face and left side part of D’s face and left side side of D’s passenger car entering the surrounding area, and assaulting the victim of the defect in the dispute.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the victim E has credibility by clearly stating the fact of damage in the manner consistent in the investigative agency and the court of the court below; (b) the victim opened a rear door to hear and resisting the Defendant’s hinging the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the hing to the
3. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence consistent with the facts charged of this case, such as the victim E's statement in the investigative agency and the court, the witness F's statement in the court, and the witness E's diagnosis statement, and the witness F's statement in the court after E was written. The diagnosis statement is only a evidence corresponding to the part and degree of injury, and it is difficult to view it as a direct evidence supporting the above facts charged. The victim E refers to the victim E's statement in the investigative agency and the person who has arrived at the vehicle in this court.