A. As the Defendant was the victim of an attack from the victim, there was no fact that the instant facts charged was committed by the victim, which was cited for the purpose of defending the attack, but did not inflict an injury on the victim. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment (basic fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The written diagnosis of injury to be submitted by the victim of a crime of determining a mistake of facts is generally identified based on the victim's statement, and the part and degree of the injury observed and judged by using medical expertise, and it is insufficient to be directly proven that the injury as stated therein was caused by the Defendant's criminal act. However, in a case where the date and time of the diagnosis of the injury is close to the time and the time of the issuance of the written diagnosis of injury, there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility of the injury, and where the part and degree of the injury as described are consistent with the cause and circumstance of the injury alleged by the victim, unless there are special circumstances, such as the victim's assault from a third party, etc. are discovered or the fact that the victim prepared a false diagnosis report is revealed, such diagnosis of injury is serious evidence of the injury of the Defendant along with the victim's statement, and it cannot be rejected without reasonable grounds.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12728, Jan. 27, 2011). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.