beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.07.17 2013노2578

상해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant did not spit the victim's face, or spawn the victim's spath by spathing spath or spathing.

2. Determination

A. On November 26, 2012, the Defendant charges of this case: (a) the issue of payment of the victim E and the cost of bathing room construction in front of the D fishing boat located in Sacheon-si C around November 26, 2012 is a dispute over the instant charges.

In order to spit or spit the victim's face, and to make the victim's face unfolded into the house, the victim was injured by an injury, such as a fresh, fresh, fresh, fresh, an open fresh, etc. (hereinafter "the injury of this case"), which requires the victim to receive approximately 14 days' treatment.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

C. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision at the trial, i.e., ① the victim made a concrete and consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the trial, and the victim's statement from F, who was working on the part of the victim at the scene, not only correspond to the victim's statement, but also G, who had been the defendant at the time, made a statement in the court of the trial, that the defendant prevented the victim from living in his house, and made a statement in the court of the trial. The contents correspond to the fact of the victim's damage, ② the defendant acknowledged the fact that he did not inflict the injury on the victim in order to prevent the victim from entering his house, but the victim argued that he did not inflict the injury on the victim in this case. However, in light of the fact that the victim was a woman of the old age, while the defendant was a male.