2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim consistently stated from the police to the court of the court below that "at the time of the case, the defendant was pushed down the victim's chest at the time of the case," and stated in the court of the court of the court below that "at the time of the case, the victim stated that "at the time of the case, the defendant was pushed down with X-ray, and was given treatment only once thereafter," and that "F at the time of the trial of the court of the court below also stated that "at the time of the case, the defendant and the victim had physical contacts at the time," and the court of the court of the court below stated that "at the time of the trial of the court below, at the time of the defendant and the victim had physical contacts at the time." The court below

Inasmuch as there is no circumstance to find out that maintaining the same as it is or it is remarkably unfair, the appellate court, as the appellate court, has to maintain the above credibility judgment of the court below as it is.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313 Decided June 14, 2012). B.

On the other hand, the injury diagnosis report against the victim of the crime of injury generally grasps the cause of the injury on the basis of the victim's statement, stating the part, degree, etc. of the injury observed and determined by the doctor by mobilization of medical professional knowledge, and it is insufficient to be a direct proof of the fact that the injury as stated was caused by the criminal act of the defendant. However, the date and time when the diagnosis report on the injury was prepared is close to the time and time when the injury occurred, and there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility in the process of issuing the injury diagnosis report, and there is no reason why the part and degree of the injury alleged by the victim.