폭행
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts in the judgment below which found the defendant guilty, although the defendant did not have committed assault against the victim by putting the victim's breath and drinking 3 times.
2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, as the Defendant committed an assault against the victim at the time of the original trial.
The victim is consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court below’s decision to the effect that “the lessee of the shop owned by the defendant set forth a claim against the defendant concerning the noise generated by the lessee of the shop owned by the defendant, and the 20 to 30 minutes after the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 30th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 2nd of the f
나. 피고인은 최초 경찰 조사 당시에는 피해자를 만나 욕만 얻어먹고 말싸움도 하지 않았으며, 피해자의 목과 가슴부위가 빨갛게 변한 이유에 대하여 모른다고 하다가, 나중에 검찰 조사에 이르러 피해자가 욕설을 하며 때리라고 하였는데 피고인이 말려들지 않자 스스로 가슴을 양손으로 때리며 자폭을 하였다고 하여, 그 진술이 일관성이 없을 뿐만 아니라 시간의 경과에 따라 오히려 단순 부인 형태에서 적극 부인 형태로 구체화되었다.
C. The police officer F, who received the report at the time, told the Defendant that the Defendant would do so to the victim during the course of coming into the H zone.
According to reference materials for the preparation of victims who agreed to the defendant as evidence, the defendant was investigated in the H District Unit two hours after the occurrence of the case.