폭행
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The costs of trial in the trial shall be borne by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that, at the time of the termination of the temporary agency work relationship with the company in the century, the Defendant had agreed to reside in and leave an officetel, which is a lodging place of the said company, until the day of the instant case. However, the victim D, an executive officer of the said company, unfairly demanded the Defendant to leave from the Aponytel, and the Defendant was in a verbal dispute with the victim, and the said demand to leave
There has been only passive defense against the Gu, and there has not been assaulted by the victim, such as cutting the victim's trees.
2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim consistently made a statement to the effect that “the victim did not comply with the victim’s request to leave the victim at the time, and boomed the victim’s body,” ② the defendant made a statement to the effect that he did not leave the victim several times during the investigation process of this case; ③ the victim reported to the police on the ground that he did not leave the victim; ③ the victim was unable to be deemed to have abused the victim first; ④ the victim was unable to be deemed to have abused the victim first due to a defect in the victim’s report to the police due to the escape issue at the time; ④ the victim appears to have been likely to have abused the victim (the victim did not mention the victim’s assault issue to the police officer at the time, but it appears not to have been mentioned that the victim did not seriously expanded the victim’s body as an executive officer, in light of the victim’s assault after the assault, and the method and degree of reporting the defect of the victim to the police as alleged by the defendant.