① The reason why the instant electric wire increased by the sidewalk cannot be known, and the Defendant did not contribute to it, so the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been negligent.

② In light of the fact that the victim’s occupation often happens around the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the inside, the victim

③ Even if the victim was faced with snow in the instant cable, the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered bodily injury in view of the fact that the victim lives naturally without undergoing any specific treatment thereafter.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant asserted the same as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion and sentenced the Defendant guilty on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the lower court in the “Judgment on the Defendant’s argument”.

B. In the crime of injury to a party’s judgment, it means that the injury inflicted upon the victim’s physical integrity or physiological function (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3732, Jan. 26, 199). In addition, the injury diagnosis submitted by the victim of the crime of injury generally indicates the cause of injury based on the victim’s statement and stated the part and degree of injury with medical expertise mobilized to observe and determine the cause of injury, and it is insufficient to be a direct proof of the fact that the injury as stated therein was caused by the Defendant’s criminal act. However, there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility in the process of issuing the injury diagnosis report.