폭행
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses of the trial shall be borne by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the defendant only sent a warning to the victim who is on board the vehicle, and he/she did not assault the victim.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ① the victim attempts to consistently from the investigative agency to the court to return to the driver’s seat after the dispute, and the Defendant provided a window to the driver’s seat with the vehicle and its windows affixed to the driver’s seat, and the Defendant would recover again if he desires to do so.
“The statement was made to the effect that the victim’s left face was sent twice on the right-hand side by drinking to the right-hand side, and these statements were reliable when comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, ② the victim reported to the police after leaving the Defendant, received treatment at the hospital, and then submitted an emergency medical record (53 pages of investigation records) and an emergency medical record (53 pages of investigation records) on the treatment of the victim’s body at the time, and “the open upper part of the entrance and the front part of the entrance (56 pages of investigation records)” (the defendant is the same as the defendant’s wife who received the above treatment was injured by himself or was in the past.
However, the victim was trying to leave after the defendant's oral dispute, and after the defendant was in dispute with the driver's seat of the vehicle, the victim's own "hyri" is why.
The police who reported to the police and arrived at the site is called "the defendant was forced to prevent the defendant from leaving the vehicle," and the police who returned to the police and returned to the scene is called to the defendant, and the victim was forced to avoid entering the victim.
In full view of the fact that the Defendant appears to have made a statement to the effect that “,” the above wife appears to have occurred at the time of committing the instant crime, and ③ was at the site of the instant case as the Defendant.
The F stated in the court that “the Defendant did not leave the victim,” but at the time F was about five meters away from the site of this case, and the vehicle on board was the driving seat of the victim.