상해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant was flabing the victim’s flab, there is no fact that the victim’s face was flabed by drinking, or that he was flabed by a tree stick.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted, since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted injury on the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below.
B. Although the victim did not want to be punished against the defendant, the defendant does not object to the crime of this case until the court below held that although the facts charged in this case are sufficiently recognized, the defendant does not object to the crime of this case until the court below. Rather, considering the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, degree of damage, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the costs of the trial by the court below and the party shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Articles 191 (1), 190 (1) and
[However, Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act in the application of the laws and regulations in the holding of the court below are clear that the phrase “Article 70(1) and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)” is a clerical error in Article 70 and Article 69(2) of the former Criminal Act. Thus, it shall be corrected ex officio under