상해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal reveals the fact that the defendant had been suffering from beer cruel toward the victim. However, the victim was only injured by beer mar for the purpose of cutting the beer mar, which was on the table, against the defendant's act, and the victim was not injured due to the defendant's act, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on a different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the facts.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at around March 27, 2015, attended the place of “J” located in “J” located in “J” located in “J” as of March 27, 2015, where her husband K attended a meeting with the employees of the company, such as the victim B (n, 51 years of age), etc., and had her talk with the victim and had her talk with the victim, and had her talk with the victim during the horse fighting, he/she was under drinking the victim.
In 500c algorithm, the victim was aground, and the victim continued to gather algorithm, which had been on the front table of the defendant, and caused injury to the victim, including approximately five weeks of treatment, such as the core heat and the first algorithm and the right algorithm, which require treatment of the victim.
B. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant was guilty on the ground that it was found that the victim was injured due to the debris of beer, in the process of leaving the beer balance to the victim.
(c)
On the other hand, the judgment of the court below was examined, and the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the victim stated in the court of the court below that “the victim prevented the beer kin kin sel, which was used by the victim, and caused the injury of this case as the victim was broken,” and ② the defendant also stated in the investigation agency that “the victim was the victim.”