On July 1, 2016, around 20:40, the Defendant drinked with the victim D, 107, 502, the C Apartment 107, and 502 (the 32-year old age) in the house and talked with the victim. The Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the victim’s laver, laver, refing, and laved with the victim, in the form of “I am late, I am back, I am back, I am back, I am back, I am back, I am back, I am back, I am back, I am back the victim’s head face, and am back the left side of the victim’s face due to drinking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Contents of the text;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel selected by imprisonment with labor

1. The summary of the argument is consistent with the defendant's twice the part of the victim's face at the time. However, it is not stated that the victim's face is "route" or the victim's left side is inflicted an injury on the victim by launching the victim's face.

2. The rejection of evidence that is recognized as having probative value by causing a suspicion without any reasonable ground is not permissible as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do14656, May 16, 2014). In a case where the statements made by witnesses, such as the victim, etc. are mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, unless there is any separate evidence to deem that there is no credibility from an objective perspective, it should not be rejected without permission, unless there is any other evidence to deem that the credibility exists (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In addition, the injury diagnosis submitted by the victim of the crime of injury is adjacent to the date and time when the injury was diagnosed, and there is no special circumstance to doubt the credibility in the process of issuing the injury diagnosis.