The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant was unilaterally sent from the victim, and there is no fact that he was involved in the victim's chest.

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be recognized as having inflicted an injury on the victim C, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Until the investigation agency and the court of the court below, the victim stated the defendant's injury in a specific and consistent manner to the effect that "the defendant was faced with the vehicle by being pushed in by hand outside the restaurant."

B. At the time, F (the Defendant’s Lee In-bok) presented a statement at an investigative agency that “The Defendant was saved with the victim’s chest while she was saved, but the victim was saved and parked behind,” and made a statement consistent with the victim’s statement (the investigation record 46 pages).

Although F made a statement in the court of the court below to the effect that "the defendant is not memoryd as to whether he was a victim, and the fact that the victim was faced with another vehicle that was faced with the her backhead," it is judged that F's statement in an investigative agency is more reliable in light of the time when the above two statements were made or its content was made, and the relationship between F and the defendant and the victim, etc.

C. On August 4, 2014, the day following the instant crime, the injury part, degree, etc. indicated in the written diagnosis of the victim issued on August 4, 2014 conforms to the victim’s statement.

Even though the victim was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million on account of the fact that the victim inflicted an injury upon the defendant, it is difficult to deem that the victim was unaware of the defendant even while the victim got beyond his/her own discretion.

3. Conclusion.