상해등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though the defendant sufficiently recognized that the victim's cell phone was damaged and the victim's shoulder was damaged by demanding reimbursement of repair costs, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Among the facts charged in this case, evidence that corresponds to the damage of this case, "the defendant has made the victim's statement that "the cell phone has been damaged far from the wind which caused the cell phone." On the other hand, the defendant consistently denies this part of the facts charged while consistently denying this part of the facts charged as follows: "The defendant stated that "the victim and G only told the victim about the problem outside of the real estate office of E's parking, and there was no act as stated in the facts charged," while consistently denying this part of the facts charged, and ② in the court of the court below, "the victim has been seated in the driver's seat and moved down to the floor while leaving the cell phone in the left hand, and the defendant has moved down the cell phone while leaving the above real estate office, and the victim again talked with the victim's cell phone away from the floor, so the victim's mobile phone has not been damaged," and there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the charges charged by the defendant and the victim's assertion that this part of the charges are inconsistent with the defendant's statement.
B. In addition, with respect to an injury, the victim finds out that the amount of the pertinent real estate office was damaged while making a lecture at a private teaching institute after moving the vehicle parked in front of the above real estate office, and visit the said real estate office again to compensate for the mobile phone.