폭행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals a somewhat exaggerated statement by stating that the victim C reached a knife due to extension of the defendant, or her hand off by a snife pipe, etc. However, the victim has consistently made a statement as to the circumstances in which the case was punished or the facts that she flicked from the defendant, and the victim’s photograph immediately after the case was taken, it is confirmed that the part on the victim’s body was removed, and the victim’s photograph was found to have been removed, and the victim’s sound fighting in the same image taken by the victim at the time of the case, etc., the defendant’s assaulted the victim’s flife.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.
2. Determination
A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in agriculture, and the victim C is a person who is running D with frequent fluences with each other. On December 25, 2014, the Defendant committed assault, such as: (a) the victim, who was temporarily installed a vinyl in the E river site at the time of light lighting around 18:50 on December 25, 2014, was found to have driven the vehicle while driving the vehicle; (b) the victim was found to have been illegally installed; and (c) the victim was able to take a photograph, and (d) the victim was able to d
B. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant consistently stated that: (b) the Defendant was merely booming the victim’s tools by consistently putting the tools that the victim left from the train; and (b) the police officer dispatched to the site immediately after the occurrence of the instant case did not have any special credit on the victim’s face
진술한 점, ③ 피해자가 2014. 12. 29. 발급 받은 상해 진단서에는 얼굴 부위의 상처에 대하여 아무런 언급이 없는 점, ④ 피해자가 피고 인과 시비를 할 당시 촬영된 영상에 의하면, 피해자는 주로 불법 건축 문제를 언급하였고, 피고인은 오히려 피해자와의 물리적 충돌을 피하려고 하는 상황이었던 점, ⑤ 피해자는 사실과 달리 피고인이 드라이브 등 뾰족 한 연장으로...