Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the statement and injury diagnosis report of the victim with no credibility, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The written injury diagnosis submitted by the victim of the crime of injury in the relevant legal doctrine is not sufficient to be a direct evidence to prove the fact that the injury as stated in the judgment below was caused by the Defendant’s criminal act, since the doctor grasped the cause of the injury based on the victim’s statement, and stated the part and degree of the injury observed and judged by mobilization of medical professional knowledge. However, if the date and time of the diagnosis of the injury are close to the time and the time of the occurrence of the injury, there are no special circumstances to suspect the credibility in the process of the issuance of the written injury diagnosis, and if there is no reason to suspect the injury’s degree and degree are consistent with the cause and circumstance of the injury alleged by the victim, unless there are special circumstances such as the victim’s occurrence of violence from a third party or the fact that the doctor prepared a false diagnosis report, such injury diagnosis is sufficient to prove the fact that the injury was caused by the Defendant’s injury with the victim’s statement and it cannot be rejected without reasonable grounds.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12728, Jan. 27, 2011). (B)

In other words, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court on August 27, 2010, i.e., the relationship with the Defendant from the investigative agency to the trial court, and the victim from the Defendant on August 27, 2010.