On March 25, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of alcohol on the roads near Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and was under the influence of alcohol on the roads near the department store, and (b) was under the influence of the victim C (the age of 59) and was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the influence of the land at the lower seat of the D-si located in the same Gu. Therefore, the Defendant was demanded to pay the rent from the victim.

The defendant, who is driving in the country, flaged the head debt of the victim, and flaged the victim's head, face, etc. due to drinking and flag.

As a result, the Defendant assaulted the victim who is the driver of a vehicle in operation and caused the injury to the brain-dead sugar that requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A report on the occurrence of a police and a report on investigation by each police (in cases of attaching a report on the occurrence of a police, such as a suspect's condition and attaching a certificate of injury to the suspect, etc.

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the bodily injury diagnosis report, boombox photographs, and to the closure of evidentiary materials;

1. The former part of Article 5-10 (2) and Article 5-10 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as to the crime

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the grounds for discretionary mitigation”)

1. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the victim’s wife suffered from the instant act appears to be able to recover nature even if there is no particular treatment, and thus does not constitute an injury under the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of injury to the relevant legal doctrine, the term “injury” refers to the injury of the victim’s completeness or physiological function (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000). On the other hand, the injury diagnosis generally grasps the cause of injury based on the victim’s statement and supervises and determines the cause of injury by mobilization of medical expertise.