폭행
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);
A. There is no misunderstanding of fact that there was no assault against the victim of the crime.
B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.
2. Determination
A. The crime of assault under Article 260 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of mistake of fact refers to the exercise of force against a person's body, and as a result, the act of wearing or exposing hand or things, as the victim turns close to the victim, did not directly contact the victim's body.
Even if the court below duly adopted and investigated evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do1406, Feb. 13, 1990; 2000Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003). The court below examined the witness C in a newspaper other than the trial date and notified the defendant of the contents of the examination on the following date.
According to the above procedure, it is legitimate to examine evidence regarding the protocol of examination of witness or the recording file of examination of witness through the above procedure, and the contents of the above witness's statement can be used as evidence of guilt. Since the defendant can recognize the fact that he has committed only one time a part of the victim's right shoulder due to plastic disease, the crime of assault as stated in the facts charged of this case is established.
As alleged by the defendant in domestic affairs, the defendant only committed physical illness but did not meet the victim.
Even if recognized, according to the legal principles as seen earlier, the act itself constitutes a crime of assault.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. The Defendant and the victim appear to have committed the instant crime in a contingent situation where there is a dispute over the overdue payment of wages between the Defendant and the victim regarding the determination of unfair determination of sentencing, and this does not seem to have caused significant damage to the victim.
Such circumstances and records are shown.