A. When misunderstanding of facts C was falpted and was inflicted with injury, the Defendant did not assault C by failing to do so.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 3,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the court’s statement at the trial of the Party C, i.e., the following circumstances, which could be seen by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, and, in other words, C’s statement (which the Defendant was able to see and talk into the building, and which was the result of the Defendant’s refusal to see the building).

The purport of the Act is that it is consistent and consistent from the investigative agency to the trial court (whether or not it has been sealed in the original trial is followed," but it is immediately thereafter that the defendant would be "" and then the defendant would go to go to the court for a separate question.

」라고 말하여 직전 진술을 수정하고 있으므로 위 진술만으로 진술을 번복하였다고 보기 어렵다), 사건 직후 진료기록에 기재된 C의 진술과도 다르지 아니한 점 등에 비추어 신빙성이 있는 점, 피고인은 「C을 우연히 만나 ”돈을 달라“라고 하자 C이 큰 소리로 욕설을 하였고, C에게 ”조용한 곳에 가자“라고 하자 C이 뒷걸음질하다가 엉덩방아를 살짝 찧고 바로 일어나서 가버렸고, 피고인도 은행으로 갔다」라고 주장하나, 수년간 C에게 돈의 지급을 독촉하던 피고인이 C이 혼자 엉덩방아를 찧고 가버리는 것을 붙잡지 아니하였다는 것이 선뜻 납득하기 어려운 점 및 C의 상해 부위 및 정도(6주의 치료가 필요한 우, 요골 골절) 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 C을 밀어 공소사실 기재와 같은 상해를 가하였다고 판단된다.

B. Circumstances, such as the absence of the degree of violence on the assertion of unfair sentencing, are considered.