A. At the time of criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the victim did not appear in the house.

In light of the fact that the statements on the background of the occurrence of the injury, the part of the injury, etc. are not consistent, and that the victim's statement is not reliable in the victim's statement in preparation for divorce lawsuit with the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found guilty of the injury among the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the lower judgment. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation of mistake is without merit.

① From March 21, 2015, the date of the occurrence of the instant case, around April 2015, when the victim reported the instant crime, the victim made a specific and consistent statement at an investigative agency and the court of the court below as to the date, process and contents of the instant crime, injury injury injury, etc.

② The victim was placed in an emergency room on the date of the occurrence of the instant case, and the victim was diagnosed as having been in an emergency room for about four weeks after six days thereafter.

The victim made a false or exaggerated statement about the crime of this case in light of the time when the victim was diagnosed and treated, the degree of the victim's injury, the number of days and contents of the treatment, etc.

It is difficult to see it.

③ On May 2015, the Defendant, at the police station around March 2015, only did not inflict an injury on the victim, and only took part in physical fighting, and memoryed to the effect that “the Defendant was on March 17, 2015, not on March 21, 2015.”