상해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant does not inflict an injury on the victim by taking into account the victim's her block.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim suffered an injury requiring medical treatment for about 10 days in two times as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
The victim is consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that he/she has consistently expressed that he/she had been at least twice.
In addition, the victim stated in the court below that the victim was assaulted by the defendant at the court below, reported to the police to the police, and that the ambulances went to the police station as the district, and thereafter the patient went to the hospital. According to the results of the inquiry into the Gyeonggi-do Fire and Disaster Headquarters of this court on September 2, 2013, immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, it can be acknowledged that the 119 first responded to the Geumnam Police Station by receiving a report from the victim related to the assault around September 22, 2013, and the 119 first respond to the Geumnam Police Station, and the victim was transferred to the I Hospital by complaining
B. On September 2, 2013, at around 22:58, the victim arrived at the I Hospital and received an inspection and treatment, and at the time, the victim expressed that the victim had a pain on the left-hand snow and the suppression, etc. by assaulting the doctor.
C. G, a neighbor of the Defendant, stated in the lower court that the Defendant was not at the time when the victim’s her son was dead. However, G was a neighbor of the Defendant, and the police officers who received a report and sent to the instant site investigated the witness and the contents of the witness. G was investigated as witness.