상해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The gist of the Defendant’s appeal is that the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act as a defense against the Defendant’s flabing and smuggling, even if the Defendant’s act was committed with the intent to inflict bodily injury upon the Defendant at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant did not receive the parts of E’s flab in this part, and even if he did so with the intent to inflict bodily injury, the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
However, according to the evidence cited by the lower court, such as the consistent and consistent statement of E and F and the video images in support thereof, the fact that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, brought in E with the intent to inflict bodily injury, and received the parts of E on the part of E in this end. Such act of the Defendant, as claimed by the Defendant, was carried out and sealed by the Defendant at the time of the instant case.
Even if it is difficult to view it as a legitimate act because it constitutes an act of attack that exercises illegal tangible power against E, the above argument is without merit (Provided, That each police statement report against E and F appears to be a clerical error in the "police statement report against E" and the "police statement report against E" under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.