상해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although there is a fact that misunderstanding the face of a victim of mistake of fact, it cannot be readily concluded that the injury was caused by the Defendant’s act in that the victim was issued a written diagnosis at the time of three days or more. Even if the Defendant’s act was caused by scambling, this is extremely minor and minor, without need for medical treatment, and thus, does not constitute the injury of the crime of injury.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution in April, and forty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The written injury diagnosis submitted by the victim in the crime of injury by relevant legal principles is generally identified based on the victim's statement, and the part and degree of the injury observed and determined by the doctor by mobilization of medical professional knowledge, and it is insufficient to be directly proven that the injury as stated above was caused by the criminal act of the defendant. However, the date and time of the diagnosis of the injury is close to the time and the time of the occurrence of the injury, there are no circumstances to suspect the credibility of the injury, and there is no special circumstance that the part and degree of the injury alleged by the victim coincides with the cause and circumstance of the injury. Unless there are special circumstances, such as where there is a circumstance that the victim suffers injury differently by assault from a third party or where it is discovered that the doctor prepared a false diagnosis report, the injury diagnosis report is a serious evidence of the fact of the injury of the defendant, and its probative value cannot be rejected without reasonable grounds.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do136 Decided May 10, 2007, etc.). B.
Judgment
The defendant is also identical to the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below.