상해
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On September 2, 201, at around 07:00 on September 2, 201, the Defendant: (a) expressed that the Defendant had a dispute over the Defendant’s ancient field and the collision with the victim D (the age of 88) before the Defendant’s ancient field located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; and (b) expressed that “the Defendant was hicking the fence to the dry field” from the victim D, and expressed that “the Defendant’s old age cannot be the age level of drinking,” and that “the Defendant was hicking the victim D’s face part and the breast each at least once, thereby causing damage to the victim D’s satch that requires approximately four weeks medical treatment.”
2. The summary of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion did not inflict any injury on the victim D, as stated in the facts charged of this case.
3. Determination
A. The victim D stated in the police and prosecutor’s office, and this court to the effect that “the defendant suffered bodily injury as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, once every time from the defendant,” and each injury diagnosis letter and the fire officer E’s statement dispatched at the time also comply with the victim’s statements.
B. However, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the records of this case, namely, ① the Defendant and the victim D did not have any contact due to the sudden question on the part of the Defendant and the victim D, and they did not have any dispute over the Defendant and the victim D on the day of this case. However, it is difficult to view that the Defendant and the victim D were at the time of the victim D on this ground, ② if the victim D got a hole from the Defendant, and the victim D was in a century to the extent that there was a spaw from the Defendant, the victim D was 8 years of age at the time, and it appears that the body was difficult for the victim D who was 8 years of age at the time, and it was difficult to hold the body easily. The victim D testified at this court to the effect that the victim D did not go beyond the Defendant in the testimony of this court. In light of the above statements, there is a question as to whether the victim D was in contact with the Defendant, and ③ in light of the above statements, the victim D from the Defendant.