상해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not drink the victim E or get off to the glass cup, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, even though it was merely the fact that the glass cup was on a several-meter away floor from the victim.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the lower judgment is sufficiently recognized. A.
The victim stated in the investigative agency that the defendant had a glass cup and followed the victim's back by entering the drinking house after he / she had a face of drinking out of his/her own.
B. The victim’s upper part of the body (Evidence No. 18, 19 of the evidence record) is teared to the back part of the victim’s left part. In light of the upper part and the form of the body, it cannot be deemed that the upper part of the glass cup occurred, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion.
다. 목격자인 F은 원심 법정에서 최초 ‘피고인이 유리컵으로 직접 피해자를 친 것이 아니고, 유리컵을 바닥에 집어던져 그 파편이 튄 것 같다’라고 진술하였으나, 이후 ‘피고인이 피해자와 서로 다투는 것은 보았는데, 서로 엉켜 있는 상태여서 직접적으로 어떻게 서로 치고 받고 했는지는 잘 모르겠다’, ‘자신은 다른 쪽에 있었기 때문에 피고인이 피해자를 유리컵으로 때려서 피해자의 귀 뒤쪽에 상처가 났는지, 유리컵을 바닥에 던져서 파편이 튀어서 상처가 났는지의 과정에 대해서는 잘 모르고, 피해자에게 피가 좀 났으며, 유리컵이 깨지는 소리가 난 정도만 알고 있다’라고 진술한 점, F은 당초 수사기관에서 피고인이 유리컵으로 피해자의 귀 부위를 쳤다고 진술한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때...