원심이 유지한 제1심 판결이유에 의하면, 피해자 에 대한 상해의 점에 관하여, 피고인들은 공소외 인과 공동하여 1979.5.1.23:00경 서울 마포구 공덕동 소재 피고인 1이 경영하는 통닭튀김집에서 피고인 1, 2와 공소외인은 주먹과 발로, 피고인 3은 각목으로 피해자 의 전신을 수회 구타한 사실과 피해자가 피고인들로부터 구타를 당한 직후에 전치 약 5주간의 안면부 비측부열창, 하안검부열창, 하누소관절단, 안구의 천공성열창 및 안구내용손실(좌안)의 상해를 입은 사실은 인정되나, 검사작성의 의사 김홍복에 대한 진술조서의 기재에 의하면 피해자의 위와 같은 상처는 유리조각 같은 날카로운 물체에 의하여 절단된 상처이고 피고인 3이 피해자를 폭행할 때 사용한 것으로서 압수된 각목(증 제1호)으로 찔러서는 그와 같은 상처가 날 수 없다는 것이므로 피해자의 위와 같은 상해가 위의 피고인들의 폭행에 의하여 생긴 것이라고 보기 어렵고, 공소사실에 부합하는 증인 피해자, 손승수, 김비웅, 서재권, 이동희 등의 진술은 증인 정점식, 이장우, 김종묵 등의 진술과 검사 또는 사법경찰관 사무취급작성의 동인들 및 김홍복, 신덕식 등에 대한 진술조서의 기재에 비추어 믿을 수 없고 달리 증거없다 하여 무죄를 선고하였다.

According to the first instance court's decision after reviewing the evidence presented in accordance with the facts charged, the injury of this case is by the same day-wise object, and it is not generated by the seizure of each item, and it was stated as knife in the glass bottle even at the treatment day. The contents of the witness's statement are once the fighting between the Defendants and the victims is completed, it was difficult for the Defendants to shoulder the glass bottle before about 2.0 meters away from the place where the fighting between the victims was finished, and it was difficult for the Defendants to flife, the victims who were flick and used on the ground, and who were flifeed with the clothes, and who was flifeed with the above clothes. The contents of the statement made by the first instance court are that the Defendants did not flife with the victim's knife, and that the Defendants did not have any flife with the knife at the point where the knife was fl't.

Examining each of the above evidence compared with the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court deemed that the injury suffered by the victim was caused by a new cause after the assault was committed by the Defendants (it seems that the first instance court did not clearly state this point, but it seems that the victims’ disease was sealed, etc.).

However, in the case of ordinary injury, the doctor's statement or diagnosis that diagnosed the above wife does not directly evidence the facts such as assault and injury, but if a harmful act such as assault and injury is recognized by other evidence, it shall be evidence of the part and degree of the injury. The statement of Kim Hong-do in this case also indicates the above injury as a result of the examination of the victim on May 4, 1979, and the opinion that it is deemed to be done by the towing material in light of the form and degree of the injury, it is difficult to determine the cause of the injury of the above victim as violence, victims, or other causes. Even according to the Kim Hong-do's legal statement, it is not impossible to determine that the result of the injury suffered by the victim cannot occur in itself, but it is also stated in the prosecutor's office that the victim's statement is 10 days free of view and 10 days free of view of the victim's oral statement other than the above Kim Hong-do's statement.

In addition, the above red or static statement is merely the purport that any one is that the Defendants, at the beginning fighting site, left away from 200 meters wide from the front door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, so the victim's injury may not be a doubt that it is not caused by

Meanwhile, according to the statements of the witness, it is difficult for the victim to see that the victim's right to spawn and spawn away from the fact that the victim had been found to have been spawned, and the victim's right to spawn and spawn away from the fact that the victim's spawn and spawn were not found to have been spawned, and the victim's right to spawn and spawn away from the fact that the victim's spawn were not found to have been spawn, and the victim's right to spawn and spawn away from the fact that the victim's spawn were not found to have been found to have been spawnd, and the court below found that the victim's right to spawn and spawn were not found to have been found to have been spawnd.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)