A. The defendant misunderstanding the facts is against the law by recognizing the guilty of the defendant, even though he did not pluck up or pluck up the victim's fingers, while avoiding the disturbance at the time and place of the decision of the court below.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below held that the victim E had consistently plicked or plicked his fingers up to the investigation agency and the court.

F. After six days from the occurrence of the case, the police officer who was called to the scene at the time, the defendant appeared to have been plucking, plucking, etc. of the victim in a telephone with the investigating police officer.

Based on the statement, the court found the defendant guilty of injury.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified.

There is no fact that the defendant had a physical contact with the victim, and another kind of photograph attached to the investigation report (CCTV investigation, etc.) is difficult to eliminate the possibility of plucking, plucking, etc. of the victim.

However, the victim stated at the police that he did not suffer damage from the person of the above photograph, and stated the same as the above photograph below the photograph, and even if based on the testimony of the J applied as a witness at the defendant's side, he did not plunder the victim's hand over, but did not plunder the victim's hand over, and considering the fact that the defendant and the victim were in a space between the defendant and the victim, the victim's action cannot be deemed to have been dismissed by the defendant's act.

Therefore, since there is no error in the judgment of the court below, this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. Sentencing is difficult to deem that there is no liability for the wrongful victim, and there are favorable circumstances.