A. The court below found the Defendant guilty on the part of the facts charged, which found the Defendant guilty on the part of the Defendant who inflicted bodily injury on the victim, even though the Defendant suffered bodily injury requiring approximately six weeks of medical treatment by assaulting the victim, “the number of days of medical treatment is unknown” and found the Defendant guilty on the part of the facts charged.

“”

B. The sentence that is unfair in sentencing is unfair because the sentence of the lower court (3 million won in penalty) is too unhued.

“”

2. Determination

A. In a criminal case of determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the injury diagnosis may serve as a valuable evidence proving the criminal facts of the defendant, along with the victim’s statement.

However, the existence of the injury fact and the relation with the person should also be acknowledged to have reached such a level that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, when there are circumstances to suspect objectivity and credibility of the injury diagnosis, it should be very careful in determining the probative value.

In particular, when the medical possibility is issued only based on the victim's subjective appeal, etc. that the death diagnosis certificate mainly has been issued, the date and time of the diagnosis shall be close to the time and time when the injury occurred, and there is no reason to doubt the credibility in the process of issuing the death diagnosis certificate, and it is deemed that there is a new cause unrelated to the cause or circumstance of the injury claimed by the victim, whether the injury part and degree stated in the death diagnosis certificate are consistent with the cause or circumstance of the injury claimed by the victim, and the inconvenience of the victim complaining for it has occurred.

In addition to examining whether a doctor can be determined readily, and the grounds, etc. for issuing a written diagnosis of injury, the probative value should be determined in accordance with logical and empirical rules by closely examining the time when the victimized person received the medical treatment after the injury case, the motive and background of receiving the medical treatment, and the subsequent medical treatment process (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15018, Nov. 25, 2016).