상해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the facts charged of this case, around 12:00 on April 5, 2019, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim’s left part in a way that the victim’s desire to talk with the victim D and the parking lot access to the “C Parking lot” managed by the Defendant in Gwangju City, by means of making the victim’s shoulder back, and the victim’s shoulder back to the victim’s left part in the course of going against the victim’s talking with the victim’s desire to d and the parking lot access.
2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of a fine of KRW 3 million on the grounds that the lower court partially modified the instant facts charged and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 3 million.
3. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not intentionally inflict an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, and even if there is family affairs, it was denied illegality as a passive defensive act. However, the court below erred by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that found the guilty of the facts charged of this case on the basis of the statement that was not reliable at the court of original instance of the victim without credibility
B. Even if the Defendant was guilty of an unreasonable sentencing sentence, the lower court’s punishment (three million won by fine) is too unreasonable.
4. Judgment of the court below
A. The court below found the defendant guilty on the basis of the core points in the court below's reasoning that "the defendant's flabbage with the left hand and flabed down the victim's flab with the wall's hand, and the victim's flab caused the victim's flab by force on his hand, and the defendant's flabddd with the victim's flab, and the victim's left flab was damaged by flabing the victim's flab." The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's flab's flab was acknowledged the credibility of the statement.
In other words, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in this case.