A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant only prevented the injured party from suffering plastics, and did not boom the injured party by breaking the vegetable disease with the hand that caused plastics while coming to her time.

The Defendant did not have the intent to commit assault or injure, and the symptoms of the victim, such as the infinite or the infinite name, etc., cannot be viewed as “infinite”

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below held that the defendant, based on D’s statement by the witness witness D of the court below, the investigation of the defendant’s suspect (including D substitute part), the police’s statement protocol on D, and the written diagnosis of injury, etc., which are the evidence duly adopted and investigated, caused the victim to go against the victim D to undergo treatment for about 14 days by displaying plastic life diseases to D.

The decision was determined.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the above evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant

The argument is without merit.

1) The victim stated in the court of the court below that “the defendant among the Dos in which dialogues with residents is divided, he she saw that he she had a Plastic disease containing water and met her own right part.” This statement is consistent and concrete from the investigative agency to the court of the court below.

2) Although there is a somewhat inconsistent aspect as to the volume of water (whether there was evidence obtained, or whether there was little evidence) brought by the Defendant during the victim’s statement (whether there were two or more diseases) during the victim’s statement, there is sufficient possibility that the victim’s memory is difficult to specifically memory or that the memory of detailed facts is inaccurate in light of the content and details of the crime, and the time interval between the time when the investigation was conducted. Thus, the above circumstance alone alone is enough to establish an investigative agency and the lower court.