A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

30,000 won from the defendant.

A. Fact-misunderstanding (the part of the judgment of the court below in the first instance) does not mean that the defendant prices the victimized person due to an alcohol disease.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged has erred by mistake.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance court: one year of imprisonment, the second instance court: one year of imprisonment, and 300,000 won additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the court of original judgment sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor as above after examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments and decided to hold a joint hearing by this court. Each of the offenses against the defendant in the judgment below against the defendant is a concurrent offense under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single punishment shall be adjudicated and sentenced at the same time in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, and this is examined.

B. The court below held that the victim's assertion of mistake of fact is sufficient to find guilty of this part of the facts charged in light of a relatively specific and consistent statement from the victim's investigative agency to the court of the court below, the victim's attitude of crime and circumstances, the part of the injury, the witness I's statement, etc., and contrary to the judgment of the court below and the statement from J and K cannot be trusted.

The Court ruled.

A thorough examination of the records of this case and a witness I’s statement (the defendant was stated to the effect that I had made a false testimony at the time of his/her birth on the very close friendly - after the testimony of the court below).

One of the arguments is that I is present at the trial of the party and make a statement different from the argument of the defendant, and the defendant is the same as the defendant in the original trial.