상해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was in the vicinity of the entrance of the meeting room of this case, and there was no way to prevent the victim who intends to leave outside the meeting room as shown in the facts charged, and the victim himself was living outside the meeting room at the time, and he was living together outside the meeting room, and the defendant did not have been pushed up with the victim, but the court below convicted the defendant. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts, as stated in the facts charged, on the grounds that the Defendant, like the victim’s body, faced with the wall by cutting off the victim’s body and harming the victim, can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim.
① The victim, at the time of the instant case from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, tried to leave the room outside the meeting room, but the Defendant prevented the victim from getting out of the meeting room while the Defendant, who was the president of the meeting room of the council of occupants’ representatives of the apartment of this case, was in general at the time of the instant case from the investigative agency to the court of the court below. Nevertheless, the victim stated in detail the situation at the time of the fact that the Defendant’s defect intending to go out of the meeting room, and the victim lost balance in the process, and the details of the written diagnosis of injury also conform
In addition, E/F’s statements at the present site are consistent with the victim’s statement in lieu of the victim’s statement, because the victim was physically fighting between the victim and the defendant, and the victim was in excess of the victim’s statement. Therefore, credibility of the victim’s statement is recognized.
(2) G is in the original judgment.